The Assembly met at noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Business

Mr Speaker: During the debate on the breakdown of law and order on Monday 28 January, allegations were made against Mr Gerry McHugh. Mr McHugh requested and has been granted an opportunity to reply to those allegations. I remind Members that the matter is not open for debate.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Following serious allegations by Mr Norman Boyd, the Member for South Antrim, in the Assembly last Monday, I wish to make a personal statement.
I place on record that at no time have I ever been charged or convicted of the murder of anyone, let alone a postal worker. Mr Boyd’s comments were without foundation, and his allegations have no connection with any material fact, nor any connection with reality. I want to make it clear that the allegations made by Mr Boyd are completely untrue. In a climate in which postal workers have been targeted by Loyalists, and in which Loyalists attack Nationalist communities daily, Mr Boyd’s remarks are thoughtless and stupid.
Members are no doubt aware of the issue of felon- setting and, in particular, the comments made in Westminster by Douglas Hogg shortly before the Loyalist murder of human rights lawyer Patrick Finucane. In that context, we need to recognise that Mr Boyd’s comments are also very dangerous. Given the seriousness of those clearly false accusations, I ask the Speaker what further measures he intends to take against Mr Boyd. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Speaker: It is the convention in such circumstances to ask the Member involved whether he accepts the statement and withdraws his remarks.

Mr Norman Boyd: I withdraw my comments on the matter.

Mr Speaker: I must comment on this incident. In the past I have warned Members repeatedly to take more care about what they say in the Chamber. Indeed, at the start of the debate in question, I warned Members about what they would say. Why do some Members choose to ignore the advice of the Chair? Erskine May, page 386 in the current edition, makes it clear that
"good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language".
In this case, a Member made a profoundly serious accusation without checking the facts. That is irresponsible. Why should Members make such accusations at all? The inevitable consequence of such accusations or certain other remarks must be to place the Member accused — in this case utterly wrongly accused — and his family in danger. If that is the intent of such comments, it is a criminal intent. No Member should use the cover of the privileges offered in the House to fulfil such intent. If that is not the intent, what is it other than to bolster an argument that is either weak in its content or weak in its delivery?
I call on Members again to be more careful about what they say, not just in respect of grave allegations of this kind, but also in respect of other comments that are made. I trust that from this sorry incident, all Members of the House will draw a line from which they will hold back, and that the whole House will draw a lesson to which it will adhere.

Assembly Business: Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion made:
That Standing Orders 10(2) and 10(6) be suspended for Monday 4 February 2002. — [The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.]

Ms Jane Morrice: I oppose the motion, which will allow the Assembly to sit this evening. We fought hard to ensure that the Assembly would adopt a modern, family- friendly approach to its proceedings. It was agreed that sittings would end at 6.00 pm on a Monday, and that should be respected.
Exceptions can be made in exceptional circumstances or where there is a tremendous backlog of work. However, that is not the case today. Why should debate on a major policy matter such as the regional transportation strategy be squeezed into an evening sitting rather than take place tomorrow?
There does not appear to be enough business for the Assembly to conduct because of a sad lack of legislation coming forward. The Executive, the Committees and private Members should bring forward legislation, as we did for the children’s commissioner, so that sittings will last for two full days in the future.

Sir Reg Empey: The decision to suspend Standing Orders was taken by a substantial majority of the Business Committee, and in those circumstances I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That Standing Orders 10(2) and 10(6) be suspended for Monday 4 February 2002.

North/South Ministerial Council: Trade and Business Development

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment that he wishes to make a statement on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in its trade and business development sectoral format, which was held in Limerick on Wednesday 23 January 2002.

Sir Reg Empey: The sixth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in its trade and business development sectoral format took place at the Castletroy Park Hotel. Ms Carmel Hanna and I represented the Northern Ireland Administration. The Irish Government were represented by Ms Mary Harney TD, Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Ms Hanna has approved the report, which is also made on her behalf.
The Council received a verbal report from InterTradeIreland’s chief executive, Liam Nellis, on the body’s recent achievements and the key activities in which it will be engaged in 2002. Those included progress on such initiatives as the reconciliation of trade statistics, the publication of discussion documents on all-island competitiveness, support for microbusinesses operating in the border region, the development of InterTradeIreland’s networks and the linking of businesses through high- profile events including the enterprise forum last November, a forthcoming equity network conference and the 2002 agency forum.
In September 2001 the Council approved InterTradeIreland’s corporate plan for 2002-04, which outlined the body’s strategic goals for that period. At its meeting, the Council considered and approved InterTradeIreland’s operating plan for 2002, which sets out the proposed activities of the body through which the corporate plan will be implemented during the current year. The main activities outlined in the operating plan include research, information and communications technology, e-commerce, the promotion of cross-border institutional and business alliances, the development of an all-island business model, knowledge transfer and the promotion of private equity.
The Council considered and approved InterTradeIreland’s proposals for the introduction and operation of a financial assistance scheme. The scheme sets down the general principles and arrangements that would apply to the assessment, monitoring and evaluation of assisted projects.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)
The Council discussed an interim position paper on public procurement, which was commissioned by InterTradeIreland. The paper identifies an opportunity for greater co-operation and the sharing of information between the two Administrations on procurement issues, including supplier linkages, tendering and supplier databases, e-procurement and the procurement excellence model. There was a useful exchange of views on the issues raised in the consultation paper. The Council noted the paper’s key findings and asked to see the InterTradeIreland proposals that resulted from the findings and recommendations of the final report.
The Council agreed to meet again in the same sectoral format in Northern Ireland in April 2002.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for his report, which contains many interesting initiatives to promote commerce, industry and, I hope, tourism in the whole island of Ireland. Does the Minister intend — now and for the next North/South Ministerial Council meeting — to assess the consequences on trade and commerce in Northern Ireland resulting from the introduction of the euro in the Republic of Ireland on 1 January, and its potential impact on inward investment here?
I hope that the Minister will agree that the currency differential could have a serious, perhaps adverse, impact in Northern Ireland, particularly in the border regions. It is important that an urgent assessment of that impact be made. In doing so, will the Minister consider the suggestions — I will not go into those now — in respect of pilot schemes that might soften the blow and improve people’s experience of the dual currencies that exist already in most border regions?

Ms Jane Morrice: Hear, hear.

Sir Reg Empey: Why am I not surprised by the "Hear, hear", Mr Deputy Speaker?
That was not discussed at the meeting. Indeed, the Member will be aware that the operational and corporate plans of the Trade and Business Development Body do not contain a requirement for that body to discuss the euro specifically. However, they do address matters that are relevant to competitiveness. The Member will also be aware that my Department sponsors the Northern Ireland euro preparations forum, which did a sterling job trying to prepare our businesses for the introduction of the euro in January. That work will continue at departmental level.
The Member will know that we are used to working in a dual currency environment. The euro does have a significance that is different, in so far as it is a pan- national currency that deals with a growing amount of trade. The bulk of our trade with Europe is in the euro zone. I am happy to take on board the Member’s comments and, even if it is not appropriate for the North/South Trade and Business Development Body to deal with it, there is no reason for its not being dealt with at departmental level or between the respective Departments, North and South. I am sure the House will hear more about the euro and how Northern Ireland’s industry reacts to it.

John Taylor: I was interested in Mr McGrady’s comments. Does the Minister agree that the introduction of the euro in the Republic of Ireland is of some significance to Northern Ireland, and does he agree that anyone who invests tries to invest wisely, does not invest in a territory where the value of the currency is collapsing, but prefers an area where the currency is strong? Any businessman using his head would not invest in a territory where the euro was collapsing. Does the Minister agree that the euro is at its lowest level for six months, and does he realise that people in Northern Ireland, who had punts in the Republic of Ireland, are now returning those funds to Northern Ireland and the safety of the pound sterling?

Sir Reg Empey: I am grateful for the Member’s comments.
My view remains that the euro is undervalued, not that sterling is overvalued. The last few years of stability between our currency and the American dollar has facilitated substantial growth in exports to North America and significant investment from North America. The problem was to do with the way in which the euro was introduced. At the very outset countries were admitted into the euro whose economies had not converged sufficiently, and this fudging of the issues, in an attempt to get the statistics to align, created the view that the euro was dominated more by political considerations than by economic ones. Consequently, we have been left with a huge mountain of between 25% and 30% differential to trade into the euro zone, and that is extremely difficult for exporters. However, it is useful in cases where people can buy in the euro zone and sell in the dollar zone. Some people do that and hedge their currencies.
The problem is that we are trying to squeeze economies into the single currency that have not converged and that need different interest rates to control their levels of activities. The Republic needs a higher interest rate, and countries such as Germany need a lower interest rate.
That fundamental conflict is the cause of the instability. It is still my view that it is the euro that is undervalued, and not sterling that is overvalued. I suspect that until such time as the markets believe that the driving force is economic and not political, some of that instability will remain.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the statement on the issues of all-island competitiveness, the operating plan for research, information and communications technology and e-commerce. Can the Minister tell us what further work can be done to allow more equal competitiveness and advantage to all areas in the light of the lack of broadband facilities in places such as Fermanagh and Derry?

Sir Reg Empey: I hope, with the Speaker’s permission, to make a statement on broadband to the Assembly, in which all those issues will be addressed, later this month. It is clear from several debates in the House, and from questions I have been asked, that there is great interest in broadband, particularly in the west. We have quite a lot to say about it; actions are already in train. I have had meetings with the Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry in London, who have responsibility for the issue, and there are a number of matters that I wish to draw to the attention of the House. If the Member will allow, I will not go into greater detail at this time.
With regard to issues that might generate further economic activity, I draw the attention of the Member to the matter of procurement. Government purchases in Northern Ireland amount to approximately £1·6 billion. In the Republic, they are in the region of £4 billion or £5 billion. Remarkably little purchasing occurs between jurisdictions. Some people from here are able to get into the procurement circuit in the Republic and vice versa, but we believe it could be far more substantial. That would have the benefit of import substitution. There may be companies capable of supplying both jurisdictions that are currently not taking advantage of that situation, partly because they do not have knowledge or understanding of the different procurement regimes. InterTradeIreland is working hard to generate further activity in that area. We believe that that will result in the creation of jobs.

Mr Jim Shannon: The DUP believes that practical co- operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is in the best interests of our constituents and the people of Northern Ireland. With that in mind, what sectoral business interests are involved in the cross-border institutional and business alliance? Will the cost of promotion be borne or shared by those businesses, and if so, to what percentage?

Sir Reg Empey: I am not sure that I heard every point that the Member made. InterTradeIreland will initially promote some of that activity, but it is the belief of that organisation that, ultimately, the private sector should take on the responsibility. What is required is a start, and for someone to set the tone. It can be done jointly. It does not all have to be done by InterTradeIreland or by the private sector. Ultimately we want it to be done by the private sector, because that would relieve InterTradeIreland of the associated costs.
There has been a history of poor communication between business organisations, with the possible exception of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Irish Business Employers Confederation (IBEC), which have been co-operating for some years. There are other areas of activity that are virtually blank.
I have just referred to public procurement in each jurisdiction, and remarkably little attention has been paid to that. We discussed at the meeting the need to take the initiative with the clear intention of the private sector’s playing an increasing role in shouldering the burden of the costs.

Ms Jane Morrice: I would like to bring the subject back to the euro, which will be a surprise. Forgive me if I misheard the Minister, but I think he said that it was inappropriate for the body to deal with single currency and the euro. I would like to understand that better. This body discusses trade and InterTradeIreland, and the euro is vital to that. The Minister said that there is a differential of between 25% and 30% when exporting into the euro zone, which is the Republic of Ireland. What is being done to help small businesses to overcome that barrier? What is being done to encourage the hospitality industry to use the euro and to allow tourists to use the euro north of the border? I have many other questions, but I will confine myself to two.

Sir Reg Empey: The Member partly misheard what I said. In the operating and corporate plans of InterTradeIreland no specific mention is made of the euro, but my Department has specific responsibilities for the euro preparations forum. However, I went on to say that there could be a role for competitiveness. I made that point clear to the Member for South Down, Mr McGrady.
We are a regional Administration in the United Kingdom, and we do not have responsibility for these fiscal matters, so we have to deal with the situation as it is. When there is a currency differential which varies between 20% and 30%, we do a number of things. First, the Department’s business excellence service, which is incorporated in the IDB, carries out an enormous amount of work to improve the competitiveness of our companies, large and small. We offer a wide range of advice. We have had "meet-the-buyer" and a range of other events to encourage companies to be as competitive as possible. However, the fact remains that if one trades in a different currency zone, one is at the mercy of the markets and of what people believe to be the value of the respective currencies. However, that is only one side of the coin.
In my reply to the right hon Member for Strangford, Lord Kilclooney, I referred to other companies that can use the strong sterling to purchase in the euro zone and resell in the dollar zone, which is our largest export market. Those people can make an additional margin out of that type of activity. If one purchases in sterling and sells in euros, one is at a particular disadvantage. I do not dismiss or underestimate the difficulties that have arisen, but I have to stress that it is not a straightforward, simple matter.
In the long term, one has to work out how to control the economies of different nations that have not converged. Those economies can have different rates of growth. One single interest rate is applied to all when it is clearly unsuitable for some — and that is the dilemma. No one has provided an answer to that question, and that is why, in my opinion, the markets are undervaluing the euro. A single currency works only in economies that have converged and are on a similar cycle. When economies peak and trough at totally different times and grow at different rates, attempts are made to squeeze everything into one pot, and it does not fit. Until that is resolved, there will continue to be an undervalued euro.

Mr Derek Hussey: I listened with interest to Mr McHugh’s question on broadband infrastructure.
I want to remind the Minister that between the constituencies of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and Foyle there is another constituency called West Tyrone. However, that is not the essence of my question.
The Minister will not be surprised that I ask him to elaborate on the section in his statement that mentions support for microbusinesses in the border region.

Sir Reg Empey: The hon Member is a member of what I call "team West Tyrone" — I will never be permitted to forget that that constituency exists between Fermanagh and South Tyrone and others. The Member has, on a number of occasions at Question Time and by other means, raised the matter of broadband infrastructure. As I said to Mr McHugh, I hope to be able to make a comprehensive statement on that at a later stage.
With regard to microbusinesses, InterTradeIreland will have a grant-giving capacity to support projects that are outside the remit of our existing agencies. Its remit will deal with assisting businesses that are straddling the border, where a small amount of resources could help. At present, such companies fall between the existing agencies of both Administrations. We will take extra care to ensure that there is no duplication, and it is not anticipated that we are talking about large amounts of money.
In some cases we have businesses that are literally on two different fields, and there are particular problems that go with that. Bearing in mind the problems that have arisen over the past 30 years, it is our view that in those areas the natural development that one would have expected was prevented by terrorism, threats, roads being closed and areas being artificially cut off, which would not otherwise have happened. We felt that it was appropriate to recognise those facts and recognise that, in those rural areas, it has not been possible to attract large multinational investments or significant locally based investments. However, there are people, particularly in the border counties, who have the desire and determination to engage in business, and we want to recognise the particular problems that they face. For that reason, we hope to provide this scheme to allow microbusinesses to grow, develop and provide much needed employment in those areas.

Mr John Dallat: I welcome the Minister’s statement and would like to follow up his encouragement for public procurement in both parts of the island. Am I to believe that this now presents a new and exciting opportunity for small and medium-sized businesses to tender for Government contracts on an all-Ireland basis? Can the Minister assure us that the procedures will be open and transparent with input from the public audit offices both here in Belfast and in Dublin?

Sir Reg Empey: The procurement policies of this Administration and of the Irish Government remain our own and theirs respectively. The point that I am trying to make is that we have recognised that there is a huge pool of procurement year in, year out. We are wrestling with the problem of defining and agreeing what the real level of trade is between the North and the South, and I can assure the Member that it is not a simple exercise and that a great deal of work is being done on that.
A comparatively small amount of procurement is going North/South, and if you add the two together you get a pool of between £6 billion and £7 billion of trade. That has the potential to grow and allow local companies to participate in it. As that is already there, we should encourage and prepare companies to take advantage of it.
There is the matter of awareness and of drawing the possibilities to the attention of small companies. They may not be aware of those possibilities, nor understand the procurement policies and procedures in the other jurisdiction. That is an educational issue, and those companies require "meet-the-buyer" events; assistance to help them get onto select lists; and help to understand the tendering procedures. The ‘European Journal’ will still apply, but the procedures set down by the Audit Office are not affected. We are engaged in an endeavour to involve companies that do not conduct, or go after, any business in another jurisdiction. There are also those companies that do go after the business but have difficulty in managing the substantial differences in the procedures on both sides of the border. There is potential in both jurisdictions for more of the existing companies to get a slice of the business. Some have been successful in winning contracts in construction, for example. Minimal cost is involved in initiating this endeavour, but it is an educational process. It has great potential.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I return to the issue of procurement policy, which is, as the Minister pointed out, a matter for each jurisdiction to decide upon. I am not sure whether the Southern figures that he gave were in euros or punts, but there is a substantial amount of money in the public procurement purse. Can he assure us that some cognisance of targeting social need (TSN) policies will be taken in the position paper, so that in the area of public procurement, and in InterTradeIreland’s scheme of financial assistance, TSN attitudes, ideas and policies can be used to target that substantial public money into needy areas on both sides of the border? Such areas have suffered from neglect over decades from state agencies that had responsibility for creating employment in those areas. When public money is available for procurement it should be used to target those areas that most need financial assistance and which need business directed towards them and business promoted and nurtured within them.

Sir Reg Empey: I can advise the Member of the precise arithmetic, but we are talking about a substantial number of billions of pounds’ worth of business annually. InterTradeIreland has published its TSN action plan, which is subject to approval by the North/South Ministerial Council, and it has made its absolute commitment clear. If you look at the type of companies targeted, and the geographical areas in which we are developing businesses, you will see that they are nearly all in TSN areas. Our endeavours in relation to procurement could, of course, apply to any company in Northern Ireland, whether it is in a TSN area or not.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
Currently, companies lack knowledge of the potential — some feel unable to take on the responsibility, as they do not have the procedural knowledge in different jurisdictions, and some may lack tendering capabilities. We believe that we can assist those companies, draw their attention to the potential and help them with the procedures. They may require technical and professional assistance. Purchasing organisations on both sides of the border have a responsibility to ensure that details of what they are doing are disseminated widely, so that even a small company in a remote rural area is, as much as possible, on a level playing field.
There is huge potential in this area — it is money that has already been spent, and a large proportion of it is in importing. Import substitution, which would have a positive impact on the balance of payments, could therefore take place here. We could make progress on a range of issues. The key issue is that many companies, especially small ones, do not recognise the potential that exists. InterTradeIreland will have the task of getting that message across to companies. It has set that as a target, therefore it must show how it intends to deliver in that respect.
We are also trying to establish accurately the baseline for current levels of purchasing on both sides of the border, so that we can measure any improvements.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: How will the development of an all- Ireland business model, the transfer of knowledge and the promotion of private equity benefit small businesses, in particular, in their quests to access venture capital? Will there be opportunities for businesses to improve in those circumstances? What does the Minister hope will emerge from those initiatives?

Sir Reg Empey: Since its inception, the Trade and Business Development Body has been tasked with examining equity capital and its availability. Work has been carried out on that. A major study by chartered accountants, which was published some months ago, indicated that, by and large, money was available at a reasonable cost. However, it also identified certain gaps in the market. There is a huge cultural problem in Northern Ireland in that people are less willing to contemplate venture capital involvement.
The Republic is ahead of us in that respect, because it has had some success, but Northern Ireland still has some way to go. The problem in the past was that venture capital tended to be available for the big boys only. However, sums of money that are within the scope of many small businesses are now available.
A business model for the island would allow us to benchmark our position and to analyse the likely impact of certain economic decisions on businesses. In that way we could identify what we must do, target resources to the businesses that need them most and identify areas of weakness where resources could be concentrated. In that sense, it is a benchmarking exercise.
The debate on venture capital and equity must continue, because there is a cultural problem. Venture capital drives much of the American economy, and it has done so for many years. However, there is resistance to venture capital here. People do not want to give up a slice of their companies. Venture capitalists can provide money to a company at a much greater risk than would a commercial bank. Understandably, they demand a percentage of the equity in the company for that service.
In North America that system has driven business, created new jobs and wealth, and encouraged the creation of new businesses. The big weakness in Northern Ireland is that our business start-up rate is lower than that of our counterparts in these islands. Anything that encourages the acceptability of venture capital and its use is therefore likely to have a positive impact throughout the economy.

Local Government (Best Value) Bill

Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: I trust that Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of Amendments detailing the order for consideration and the amendments that I have grouped for debate in my provisional list. Members will note from the Marshalled List that the Committee for the Environment intends to oppose certain clauses of the Bill. That has been noted in the provisional grouping.
I propose two groups of amendments, which will be debated in turn. The first group consists of amendments 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and also the Committee’s opposition to clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7. Members who wish to speak on any of those issues should speak during the first debate, albeit that the votes on each of them will come at the normal place. The second group consists solely of amendment 2, which is the new clause being proposed by the Minister.
If that is clear, we will proceed.
Clause 1 (The duty of best value)

Mr Sam Foster: I beg to move amendment No 1: In clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out subsections (3) to (5).
The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:
No 3: In clause 8, page 5, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 17. — [Mr Foster.]
No 4: In clause 8, page 5, line 18, leave out "principal Act" and insert "Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 (c. 9)". — [Mr Foster.]
No 5: In clause 9, page 5, line 21, leave out subsection (1). — [The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment (Rev Dr William McCrea).]
No 6: In the long title, leave out from "imposing" to "effectiveness" and insert
"placing on district councils a general duty to make arrangements for continuous improvement in the way in which their functions are exercised". — [Mr Foster.]
Before I speak on the group of amendments, I want to remind Members of the purpose of the Bill, and to explain the background to the amendments I am now commending to the Assembly. My objective has been to create best value arrangements that will deliver transparency, accountability and value for money in the use of council resources and in the provision of local services to council residents and ratepayers. It is, therefore, a Bill for local people.
Another important aspect of the Bill is the repeal of compulsory competitive tendering (CCT) of specified council services. As I said during an earlier debate, few Members will mourn the passing of CCT. I was one of its main opponents in my days as a local councillor. Best value is a much better process. Emphasis is placed on quality and level of service, rather than measured in cost terms alone.
It would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to acknowledge the full and detailed consideration given by the Committee to my proposals. I do not deny that the Committee received significant reservations in evidence from local councils and other interested parties. However, as the debate unfolds it will become clear to Members that I have listened and reacted to those concerns. Throughout the consultation process I have taken account of constructive comments, and I have sought to introduce a best value process that best reflects the specific requirements and circumstances of local government in Northern Ireland.
The reduction of the Bill from 19 clauses to 11 recognises what is best for local government in Northern Ireland, and is balanced with the rights of local residents, ratepayers and users of local council services. Since 1998, district councils have been fully engaged in best value development through four joint working groups and a steering group. The working groups, each chaired by a council chief executive, were responsible for developing guidance, performance indicators, customer surveys, and so on. I am fully committed to that partnership approach to best value. I will ensure that it continues in the interest of all who are engaged in its implementation. I hope that the above demonstrates that neither the Department of the Environment nor I can be accused of "going it alone" on best value development, or of trying to rush through statutory provisions without taking into account the views and representations of consultees.
Concerns were expressed that a best value statutory framework was being advanced at a time when several reviews of best value were being undertaken in England and Wales. Departmental officials and I were mindful of those developments. My colleagues in GB assured me that none of those reviews would change the principles and broad framework of best value as contained in GB best value legislation. However, some of the detailed implementation requirements may change. My officials and I are monitoring that carefully in the interest of developing best value guidance for councils in Northern Ireland.
It has also been suggested that progress on best value statutory provisions should await developments in the review of public administration. No one knows what will emerge from that review. My firm opinion is that best value, as a process, can be applied regardless of the structures and responsibilities of local government.
Before addressing each amendment, I want to look to the future. I welcome the Committee for the Environment’s endorsement of best value as a process that is aimed at the interests of local people. I also welcome the Chairperson’s assurance that the Committee does not oppose a statutory framework for its implementation. In the future I will consider, with ministerial Colleagues and the Committee, the establishment of a full statutory framework. We will be informed in that by reviewing council performance under the voluntary arrangements and will take into account the outcome of the review of best value in Great Britain. Progress on the review of public administration will also be considered, as will developments arising from the procurement review.
I will now turn to the amendments. In my introductory remarks, I outlined my strong belief that best value is, first and foremost, for the benefit of local residents, ratepayers and users of council services. I welcome the Committee for the Environment’s endorsement of the best value principles of transparency, accountability and value for money. I assume that all Members support those key objectives for local council services. I am pleased that the Committee recognises the importance of placing a statutory duty on councils to deliver best value in consultation with local people. Such a duty exists in England and Wales, and will soon be introduced in Scotland. It would be a disservice to Northern Ireland citizens if the Assembly denied them the same rights that are being afforded to all other citizens in the United Kingdom.
Members know that I would have preferred to establish a full statutory framework for best value, which would have given local people the assurance that councils’ implementation of best value and service performance was transparent and subject to statutory independent audit. However, I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by the Committee for the Environment, district councils and others regarding the introduction of the framework now. Consequently, in clause 1, I propose to omit subsections 3, 4 and 5, which provide for a best value framework. Importantly, however, councils are still required to make arrangements for continuous improvement having regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and in consultation with local people.
It was important in my opening remarks to demonstrate the many and varied issues that I had to consider at this key stage of the Local Government (Best Value) Bill. The proposals in amendment 1 reflect a balanced consideration of those issues. Significantly, the amended clause 1 is critical to the whole Bill, as it determines the broad principles of the best value duty.
Clause 2, for example, makes provision for the Department’s input to the statutory framework, outlined in subsections 1(3) to 1(5). Under that clause, the Department would have the statutory power to issue guidance on matters such as public consultation, service reviews, performance improvement plans, performance indicators, standards, and so on. The amendment of clause 1 renders that clause superfluous. However, those matters are all key components of best value, and the Department will continue to develop them in partnership with councils, the Committee for the Environment and others under the non-statutory arrangements.
Clauses 3, 4 and 5 make provisions regarding the auditing arrangements and responsibilities that underpin the best value framework. As I said earlier, it is important that best value be transparent and accountable. An independent audit of best value would provide further assurances to local people in that regard. Without such a statutory framework, it is not appropriate to put in place a statutory auditing arrangement. In the absence of a statutory audit of best value, I will ask my officials to consider, in conjunction with all appropriate bodies, what auditing arrangements are suitable under the non-statutory framework and also to explore, with the local government auditor, what assurances can be provided with regard to the outworking of best value under a general statutory duty.
Clause 7 was originally intended to provide a power to except specific councils from specific duties under the statutory best value framework. However, no council would be excepted from the general duty of best value under the amended clause 1. Accordingly, clause 7 is no longer relevant to the Bill. In recognising the significant impact of amendment 1 on clauses 2 to 5, I am nevertheless content that the non-statutory arrangements for best value will still be in place to ensure that the momentum and development of best value continue. Consequently, I will not be opposing the removal of clauses 2 to 5, or clause 7, from the Local Government (Best Value) Bill.
Amendment 3 to clause 8 would omit the interpretation provided for "the principal act", on the understanding that the reference to the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 1972 would not be required in clause 9, if amendment 5 were carried. In accordance with my earlier conclusions on the statutory framework as it relates to the audit of best value, I will not be opposing amendment 5.
Amendment 4 is a further amendment to clause 8 that would remove the reference to the "principal act" in line 18, in keeping with amendment 3. Amendment 6, which amends the long title, makes provision for a general duty on councils
"to make arrangements for continuous improvement in the way in which their functions are exercised."
The duty is further clarified in clause 1, subject to amendment 1.
I commend these amendments to the Assembly.

Rev William McCrea: On behalf of the Environment Committee, I ask the House to support the amendments put forward by the Committee and the Minister. I take the opportunity to thank the Minister for his kind words, which are appreciated by myself and, I am sure, by the Committee members.
I suppose that even as recently as two weeks ago, no one on the Environment Committee would ever have imagined that I would rise to support the Minister. At the same time, we never imagined that the Minister would support the Committee’s proposal for this Bill. However, a week is a long time in politics and where there is a will, there is often a way. I thank the Minister and his officials, some of whom are present, for their willingness to consider the propositions, proposals and amendments suggested by the Committee.
It is important at this stage to clear up any misunderstanding that Members or others outside this House may have about the stance of my Committee towards best value. We do not oppose the principle. We support the work carried out by councils over the past three years on a voluntary best value basis, and we desire to see that work enhanced and continuing.
Paragraph 52 of the Committee’s report on the Bill states
"This Committee does not oppose a statutory framework for the implementation of Best Value within Northern Ireland and readily endorses the Best Value principles of transparency, auditability, accountability and value for money for Council services."
The ratepayers and residents of Northern Ireland deserve the best possible framework appropriate to Northern Ireland. It is clear to all that its development will require proper consultation achieved by genuine listening to all key stakeholders.
The councils and other interested bodies expressed concern and opposition to the Bill as originally proposed, because they believed that it was flawed and that many of its proposals were premature. We are delighted that the Bill before the House today has taken into consideration many of the concerns of elected representatives on district councils and other interested bodies, and especially those of the Environment Committee.
However, the Committee consistently opposed what we saw as a flawed and premature attempt at a Bill to legislate for a prescriptive best value framework. Some might suggest that the members of the Environment Committee are merely putting forward their own views or pursuing their own interests on the issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. I contend that few Committees in this House have consulted as widely and as fully as my Committee did on best value.
Why are we convinced that the Bill brought before this House in July 2001 was flawed, premature, and overtly prescriptive, and did not deserve our support? I wish that I could give one simple answer, but that is not possible. At this stage I am not inclined to deal in any depth with the reasons of the Minister and his officials for thinking that the Bill deserved our support at that time.
In its comprehensive report, the Committee disproved every argument that was put forward by the departmental officials. For example, the Department already has sufficient legislative authority to empower the local government auditor to carry out value-for-money audits. The Committee’s report provided overwhelming evidence that, if the Bill had proceeded as it was originally presented to the House, it would have been a serious mistake with far-reaching consequences.
The Committee supports the Minister’s amendments to clause 1 and the long title. In particular, the Committee is pleased to note that in clause 1, subsection 2, the Minister intends to introduce a general duty for best value, along with a requirement for consultation with ratepayers and others. He is content not to proceed with the rest of clause 1. That significant change has also been reflected in the changes to the long title.
I ask the Assembly to join the Committee in opposition to clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 standing part of the Bill. Those clauses were originally included to support a detailed statutory framework for best value, and are no longer needed. The Minister has indicated that he will not oppose such amendments, and I once again put it on record that the Committee appreciates and welcomes the Minister’s response.
It is proposed that clause 6 remain in the Bill. It is an important enabling clause that will allow for amendments to the current list of non-commercial matters in the interests of councils promoting key policies. The Committee has scrutinised and consulted on the clause, and asks the House to support it.
The Minister has proposed a minor consequential amendment to clause 8. The Committee has no hesitation in supporting that amendment, and I ask the House to support it also.
The Committee has proposed a relatively straightforward amendment to clause 9. It is necessary in the light of the removal of the statutory framework provisions for best value. The remainder of clause 9 is important because it repeals compulsory competitive tendering, which all Members will welcome. That amendment has the Minister’s support, and I ask the House to support it.
Before us today is a clear demonstration of what can be achieved when a Minister and his officials work closely with the Statutory Committee. We have all seen the benefits of co-operation to arrive at a mutually accepted solution, and it must be recognised that both interests have done what was needed to achieve that end. For example, not only did the Committee give over a significant part of several recent meetings to scrutinising the Minister’s proposed amendments, but, as the Minister knows, his officials attended an extraordinary meeting last week to accommodate an urgent presentation by his Department. The manner, spirit and content of that presentation were most helpful.
I must recognise that the Minister has moved considerably to reach the point we are at today. Up to last Thursday, he had given written assurances to the Committee on several fronts. For example, guidance to district councils on the Bill will be developed by the Department through full consultation with the Environment Committee, employment representatives, district councils and other local government interests. It will include references to other issues, such as environmental considerations and other relevant statutory provisions.
While the Minister has indicated that he will review best value in the future, he has said that any substantive development will be brought about only through primary legislation before the House.
I will not pretend that working on the Bill has been an easy road for the Committee, the Department, the Minister or his officials. However, the experience has been worthwhile, because the Bill will be in the interests of the ratepayers of Northern Ireland.
I place on record my thanks and appreciation for the diligent work of the Committee members, especially the Committee secretariat and all those who responded to the Committee. I thank them for their assistance, application and, on some occasions, their patience. Again, I thank the Minister and his officials for the manner in which we were able to conclude work on the Bill. I urge the House to support the amendments.

Mr James Leslie: Like Dr McCrea, I welcome the Bill in its amended form and support the amendments and the negativing of certain clauses which were necessary to reconstruct the Bill in a manner that makes best value less prescriptive than originally intended.
I fully support the principle of best value, which is well communicated by both the long title and clause 1. This will not be the end of the matter, but I trust that it will not and should not be revisited until the completion of the review of local government and the implementation of the forthcoming new Government procurement policies. Until we know where we stand with those issues, we cannot reasonably address changes to the way in which councils conduct their affairs.
I particularly welcome subsection 2 of clause 1. That is an important part of the Bill, for a slightly unsatisfactory reason. Subsection 2 of clause 1 asks councils to take account of the views of persons who appear to the council to be representative of ratepayers; persons who use or are likely to use services provided by the council; and persons with an interest in the council district. In effect, this suggests in part that the membership of a council may not accurately reflect all those views. If we ask ourselves how often a council seat in Northern Ireland has changed hands because of a ratepayer issue, the answer is almost never, so we can see the potential significance of this part of the Bill.
This has a real resonance at present in the Moyle district, in my constituency of North Antrim. I regret that the Bill is not law now, because clause 1, subsection 2, could have a considerable bearing on the outcome of the current heated debate about the future of the visitors’ centre at the Giant’s Causeway.
I support the amendments.

Mr Arthur Doherty: I will speak in general terms about all the clauses and amendments. I have been on the horns of a dilemma for a considerable time, which is not a comfortable place to be. The dilemma arises from the fact that I — and I hope all Members — want the principles of best value to be adapted and implemented economically, effectively and efficiently, with full regard to equality and, where appropriate, to the environment.
It must happen in every arm of public administration, including local government. My dilemma was that I was not convinced that the Bill as first proposed would achieve what the Minister hoped it would achieve, and what we had the right to hope it would achieve. My dilemma has not been lessened by the fact that I come to this debate as a ratepayer and a taxpayer, an SDLP member, a member of the Committee for the Environment and, for many difficult years now past, as a district councillor. All those factors have coloured my understanding of how best value might be achieved in public administration.
I was struck by a statement that I read recently that has been attributed to the President of the United States, George W Bush:
"I have opinions of my own — strong opinions — but I do not always agree with them."
Hail to the chief. On reflection, I must say to myself and others: if the cap fits, wear it. How many of us have strong opinions that have been formed sometimes for the right reasons and sometimes for the wrong reasons that have been influenced by our background and experiences? On more mature reflection, we may have to acknowledge that some of our deeply felt opinions are flawed, that perhaps we should not agree with them and that it might be right for us to change or at least moderate them. All that takes courage.
The relevance of that point to today’s business is that the Bill has reached this stage as a result of a long, hard process that involved much discussion and debate. It has been acknowledged that, although there have been hiccups, the voluntary arrangement of best value is a concept worth developing and that it must have proper safeguards and effective monitoring and guidance. However, that must arise from genuine consultation between central Government, the councils and the other stakeholders in the process. Such partnership is at the heart of true democracy.
In Northern Ireland politics, the SDLP created the partnership principle. It introduced that principle to the councils, and steered them and the country along the painful road to the point where partnership is now almost universally acknowledged in principle, if not always in practice. It is right that partnership should be the cornerstone of best value and that best value should be an evolutionary process that takes account of the considerable differences between councils and between the communities that they serve. Best value must not be too prescriptive, particularly at the initial stage. That would stifle its natural growth and development and smother hardworking councillors and their officers in a welter of red tape.
Of course, rigorous monitoring and auditing are essential, and there must be provision for stringent reviews as and when necessary. That will be welcomed if it is seen not as "big brother" watching you, but as "big brother" working with you.
The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment has affirmed the Committee’s collegiate acceptance of the Bill as proposed today. After giving it careful consideration, the SDLP is also prepared to give it its blessing. We know that it is not a final solution — we must be wary of them. We know that there will be difficulties ahead, but we have confidence in the good intentions of councillors and their staff. We know that they will give it their best shot and that the country will benefit from it.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Although "process" is a much-used word, it is appropriate to frame comments on this matter in the context of its being a process. The establishment of the Assembly, the Departments and the periodic monitoring rounds — when significant sums of money can sometimes be found — show that the concept of best value must be comprehensively applied.
Indeed, the important and valuable work of the Public Accounts Committee demonstrates that there are issues of accountability and transparency that affect more than the local government arena.
As someone who has considerable experience of working on a council — although I am no longer a councillor — I was concerned at the initial approach. Local councils, which are an important local democratic forum, account for 5% of the overall public expenditure programme. Clearly, a prescriptive statutory approach to best value, directed only at local government, would not have addressed how we most effectively and efficiently apply the resources to hand.
It was an interesting experience working on the Committee. It took some considerable time to get through the various issues. However, there was a consistency in our focus that eventually commanded the attention of the Minister. I want to join with those Committee members who have acknowledged the responsiveness of the Minister and his advisers once we got down to the issues. That was an important learning experience all round.
My party will support the Bill as presented. I want to support the expert and comprehensive summary of the Committee’s deliberations given by our Chairperson, and also to commend the staff who, throughout the process — and sometimes under extreme pressure — provided expert and technical advice that helped all concerned, including the Minister and his advisers. There is no such thing as a perfect result. I argued, as did other parties, for the inclusion of references — the five Es. We thought that references to equality and the environment in clause 1 would be important.
However, that is not to cavil about what I believe was significant, important and constructive work, and a constructive engagement between the Department, the Minister and his officials, and the Statutory Committee, which has demonstrated in this case its primary purpose and reason for being. Before us today is the amalgamation of the collective experience of the Assembly, and it deserves collective support from the Assembly. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr David Ford: I want to add to this overwhelming feeling of consensus. It is such a relief after all the weeks the Committee spent on this Bill, and it is a great pleasure. The Bill, as amended — and it appears from the speeches this morning that it is likely to be amended — will leave this session in a far better shape than when it first came to the Committee. Indeed, it will probably leave here in better shape than when it left the Committee Stage. In the spirit of this growing consensus, we should accept that the Minister’s amendments have improved on that which the Committee sought to do during its deliberations over the Bill.
This has been a two-stage process that fundamentally shows the value of devolution. In particular, it shows the value of a Committee that engaged seriously on this issue — at great lengths, and over many sittings — and arrived at a unanimous position. We owe some credit to the Chairperson of the Committee for this. Others have already praised him, and I add my praise, both of him and of the staff who ensured that all the representations made were taken into account.
There is no doubt that this is what devolution has achieved. Had we still been under direct rule, this Bill would have gone through the House of Commons some time in the early hours of the morning as an Order in Council — unamended and unamendable — on the nod, even though we believe, and it appears that the Minister has accepted our point, that its provisions, as originally proposed, were not appropriate to the sort of councils we have in Northern Ireland. If anything, we should learn that devolution has proved that we no longer need to take the "one size fits all" approach to the governance of the UK.
There are four different regions with four different needs. Thank goodness we have managed to get this one right. We welcome the abolition of compulsive competitive tendering, and this Bill takes us beyond that, a situation which was clearly long overdue. That sets the tone for how best value can continue to operate on a voluntary basis and for how full consultation can take place in order to decide on the statutory measures that are needed in the future.
I wish to highlight a couple of points. Arthur Doherty and Mitchel McLaughlin have made the first one, and I regret that we could not persuade the Minister to add environment and equality to the three Es of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in clause 1, subsection 1, but I do welcome his written assurance to the Committee last week that they will be included in the guidance. At least it shows that we sought to co-operate. I also welcome the Minister’s assurances about consultation between the Committee and councils and their staff as guidance is developed. However, I hope that we can see some more innovation from the Department as guidance is developed further now that they have started to step outside the English model.
Would it not be nice if councils were given a really challenging task when reporting on best value instead of ticking several hundred boxes on a form, which means little to the council officers who tick them and absolutely nothing to the residents? Why not set them a real challenge by asking them to produce a report on their achievements in one year, in simple language, on two sides of an A4 sheet? That would be much more creative and much more difficult, but much more meaningful to residents.
A few weeks ago the Assembly inflicted something of a defeat on the Department of the Environment over the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill. I am delighted that the Department has learnt from that and that we have managed to seek consensus and work together on the Local Government (Best Value) Bill. I do not need to repeat the points that have been made by other Committee members. We must build on the approach of consensus, and I hope that the Department, in conjunction with the Committee, district councils and their staff, continues to make progress in the kind of genuine partnership that best value should really be about.

Mr Edwin Poots: I support the Bill as amended. I am pleased that we have reached this stage and that we are in a position where the Committee and the Department are singing from the same hymn sheet and agreeing on this. As a district councillor, I should declare an interest in the matter.
One of the original concerns was that councils would be laden down with paperwork and would not be able to deliver best value. Fortunately, we have moved to a position where real best value can be achieved because of the amendments that have been made, particularly to the massive audit trail that was requested.
The comments from the leader of the Alliance Party were interesting, particularly his remark about the two sides of an A4 sheet filled with achievements in a local council area. I am sure that the people in Antrim are glad that he is no longer a councillor there, if the council could fill only two sides of an A4 sheet with its achievements. I am sure other councils wish to achieve much more.

Mr David Ford: The record will show that I said that it would be particularly challenging to put them on only two sides, and, obviously, that was a reference to Antrim.

Mr Edwin Poots: It might be a challenge for Antrim, but I am sure that other councils would have no problem filling considerably more than two sides of an A4 sheet. Nevertheless, I welcome the progress that has been made. Perhaps it will send a signal to Ministers and Departments that they must take notice of what Committees say and do.
The Bill, as it stood, did not have the support of local authorities, unions and, ultimately, the wider public, although it is not a major people-related issue. Nevertheless, we have achieved a broad consensus, and all parties have given support to the amended Bill. In that respect it is important that Ministers pay more attention to what the public and civil servants say. When looking for new Bills — and there should be more Bills — Ministers must look at what people want and not at what civil servants believe they want and not at what has been picked up from England and Wales and handed straight to Northern Ireland.
Let us look at each Bill as it stands, and let us represent the views of the people on each of those Bills rather than simply follow Civil Service-speak laboriously.
I thank all those involved for their efforts to reach this point, and I commend the Bill.

Mr George Savage: In my opinion, best value has always seemed not only logical but something that ratepayers and electors expect councillors to do as a matter of course. What else would a council do but seek best value and test the market? This is a great opportunity. It would seem indefensible if someone were to stand up to speak in favour of anything other than best value in the spending of taxpayers’ money. That person would not have much of a future in politics and the modern world. This Bill is an honest attempt to secure best value, and so deserves the support of the Assembly. The Minister has been accommodating and has taken account of the representations made to him on the Bill. He has listened, and has been a reasonable and responsible Minister.
Securing best value keeps Northern Ireland in line with other parts of the United Kingdom such as England and Wales. The Bill will be an important benchmark for the local government auditor. It will be an invaluable tool for measuring councils’ performance. An important function of the Assembly is always to seek best value. We must become the advocates of local government and all its trimmings — efficient, effective and simplified government. I stress the importance of simplified government, of which the Bill is a linchpin. For those reasons I support the Bill and the Minister’s efforts to bring it forward.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I should perhaps declare an interest; as everyone knows, I have been a councillor for some time.
I have often heard it said that the only thing that is worse than no law at all is bad law. Through the approach that we have taken on this issue, I have a small fear that we could be getting close to making a bad law. It is important that we get best value right, because it is a vital area for us all. However, I welcome the Bill, and I will support it, if for no other reason than that it is an alternative to compulsory competitive tendering. Like many Members, I have witnessed the damage that that policy has caused both to the delivery of services and to the rights and welfare of employees. I will be glad to see it removed.
Why am I concerned? Best value must be applied in statute beyond district councils. That is the truism. Councils spend only 2·8% of the block grant. The 5% referred to earlier by Mr McLaughlin also includes money raised through rates. The interesting point is that boards, bodies and quangos in Northern Ireland spend approximately 65% of the block grant, yet they are not being subjected to best value rigour.
I am aware of the nature and content of this piece of legislation; a much more comprehensive approach is needed to ensure that best value is introduced properly.
I still have concern about the level of consultation with district councils, particularly because of what happened in the preparation for this legislation, and I wonder if that is an indication of the level of consultation that will surround its implementation. I hope not. There is an opportunity for guidance to be drawn up in consultation with all the participants.
Conversely, there is little evidence of opportunity for scrutiny and control in what I have read surrounding this Bill. How will it be done? Will the guidance provide it? Sometimes pundits like to take a poke at Government and local government, and they may be critical of some Members expressing concerns about best value in councils. However, they do not understand that councils want to see scrutiny and control with best value. They want to ensure that everybody is working at the same level. They do not want to see a system in which one council applies the rigours of best value completely and another council goes through the motions. We need scrutiny and control, and that is what councils want. They do not want a flabby system of best value.
I regret that we are not in a position to benefit from the experience of best value in England. That research will be available in the next few months. I do not take the view that I heard expressed in the Chamber earlier that the Department simply lifted the legislation from England. Had it lifted the legislation from England, some of the amendments that have been made would not have been needed.
That policy was introduced in England about four years ago, and there is a wealth of experience there. While our system is patently different, and while our needs and situation are also very different, it strikes me as sensible to wait and take advantage of that experience. Why should we run the risk of making mistakes or reinventing the wheel? However, I concede that within the Bill and its preparation, and as expressed today by the Minister, there is a clear understanding of the need to monitor closely all those developments and a willingness to incorporate change where it can be proven to be wise. I welcome that commitment from the Minister and rest my hope on it for the future development of best value.

Mr Sam Foster: I thank all the Members who participated in the debate for their undoubted interest and support for the best value principles. I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment for his supportive remarks. I also thank the Committee and its officials for the way in which they have responded to the arguments that I have put forward in seeking to have a statutory duty on best value. The Committee and the Department conducted business on best value in a very positive manner, which we must encourage for future issues.
Dr McCrea said that the Local Government (Best Value) Bill, as originally proposed, was flawed. I regret his use of the term "flawed", because the Department and the Committee worked together in a spirit of co-operation to reach a balanced approach to best value. However, as I said in my opening address, we must now look forward to the future rather than dwell on the past.
Mr Ford made a point about making best value reporting more user-friendly to local people. I share that view and have always contended that I do not wish to make best value cumbersome or over prescriptive.
I have committed the Department to work in partnership with local government and the Committee for the Environment to develop further guidance. I am confident that our guidance will help councils and will be in the interests of local people.
Other representatives have spoken out about different public service issues. My responsibility is to deliver a best value framework within local government — my remit extends no further than that. The Departments of Central Government operate under a value for money or best value framework. Elements of that include a Government accounting manual and accompanying financial regulations, a requirement to produce resource accounts and to operate a resource budget, a detailed Programme for Government incorporating departmental public service agreements, corporate and business plans, internal audit and Northern Ireland Audit Office scrutiny, and the Public Accounts Committee of the Assembly. We must accept that we are all under scrutiny.
The Assembly is, rightly, concerned about standards of transparency and accountability throughout the public sector. That is vital. As a local Minister, it is my duty to further promote transparency and accountability in the use of council resources and the provision of local services.
I have listened carefully to Members’ representations and to the concerns expressed by the Committee about the timing of the implementation of a statutory framework for best value in Northern Ireland. I am pleased that we now have a basis on which to agree a way forward that maintains a statutory best value duty in the interests of local people.
I thank the Committee, its support staff and my departmental officials for their unstinting endeavours in recent weeks to secure an agreed strategy for developing best value. I also thank those who contributed to the further consultation process, and in particular, my own staff, who worked diligently to put the Bill together.
I am committed to work in close consultation with the Committee for the Environment, district councils and other local government interests to further develop best value guidance under the voluntary arrangements. That guidance should benefit councils in their pursuit of best value, providing the necessary consistency of approach and enabling councils to learn from one another. In the Bill, I have responded to the representations made to me and have sought to balance those representations with a firm commitment to pursue high standards of transparency and accountability in local government. That is vital to all Government Departments. Local people require and deserve no less.
Amendment No 1 agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: No amendments have been put to clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5. However, some Members, and the Committee, have indicated their intention to oppose the question that those clauses stand part of the Bill. The question for each being the same, I am minded to group them, by leave, en bloc.
Hearing no objection, I put the question that clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 stand part of the Bill.
Question, 
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: A number of Members have listed their intention to oppose clause 7. I put the question that clause 7 stand part of the Bill.
Question, 
New clause

Mr Sam Foster: I beg to move amendment No 2: After clause 7 insert:
"Power to modify statutory provisions and confer new powers
(1) If the Department thinks that a statutory provision prevents or obstructs compliance by councils with the duty under section 1(1), the Department may by order make provision modifying or excluding the application of the provision in relation to councils.
(2) The Department may by order make provision conferring on councils any power which the Department considers necessary or expedient to permit or facilitate compliance with the duty under section 1(1).
(3) In exercising a power conferred under subsection (2) a council shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Department.
(4) An order under this section may—
(a) impose conditions on the exercise of any power conferred by the order (including conditions about consultation or approval);
(b) amend a statutory provision;
(c) include supplementary, incidental, consequential and transitional provisions.
(5) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly.
(6) Before the Department makes an order under this section it shall consult—
(a) persons appearing to it to represent councils; and
(b) such other persons as appear to the Department to be representative of interests affected by the proposals.
(7) If, following consultation under subsection (6), the Department proposes to make an order under this section it shall lay before the Assembly a document explaining the proposals and, in particular—
(a) setting them out in the form of a draft order; and
(b) giving details of consultation under subsection (6).
(8) Where a document relating to proposals is laid before the Assembly under subsection (7), no draft of an order under this section to give effect to the proposals (with or without modification) shall be laid before the Assembly until after the expiry of the statutory period beginning with the day on which the document was laid.
(9) In preparing a draft order under this section the Department shall consider any representations made during the period mentioned in subsection (8).
(10) A draft order laid before the Assembly in accordance with subsection (5) must be accompanied by a statement of the Department giving details of—
(a) any representations considered in accordance with subsection (9); and
(b) any changes made to the proposals contained in the document laid before the Assembly under subsection (7)."
This amendment proposes a new clause to the Bill in recognition of further representations made to the Department during the consultation process.
This clause has two prime functions — to enable the Department to change a statutory provision that, in the Department’s opinion, prevents councils from delivering best value under the duty described in clause 1(1) and to enable the Department to pursue the granting to district councils of more wide-ranging powers exercisable in the interests of delivering best value. Such powers are granted to local authorities in Great Britain under sections 16 and 17 of the Local Government Act 1999. I believe that similar powers are also proposed in best value legislation planned for Scotland. The powers provided in this clause are exercisable through subordinate legislation, requiring a draft to be laid before the Assembly and its approval sought under affirmative resolution.
In taking forward such proposals the Department is required to consult with district councils and all other appropriate bodies. The proposals will also be subject to the consultation procedures laid down by the Assembly for major policy and legislative proposals. In conclusion, this amendment is proposed in the interests of district councils and has the support of the Environment Committee. I commend this amendment to the Assembly.

Rev William McCrea: I rise to speak on behalf of my Committee and ask the House to support amendment No 2, as proposed by the Minister. This is an entirely new clause, which arrived with the Committee in the Minister’s proposal of 24 January 2002. The Committee had previously raised with the Minister the possibility of such a clause being included in the Bill, following representations from various councils — notably Belfast City Council and Antrim Borough Council. At the time, the Minister dismissed the inclusion of such a clause, as it would require extensive consultation. The Committee has now scrutinised the proposed clause and consulted on its terms. It is an important enabling clause which, for example, has the potential to allow councils the flexibility to develop those partnerships that may be vital for them to deliver the optimum solutions for all ratepayers.
Members will note that the clause has wide-ranging powers. However, the Department must consult widely, with any orders under this clause being laid in draft and needing to receive the Assembly’s approval. Furthermore, any forthcoming departmental guidance on this clause must be agreed with the Environment Committee. The Committee is therefore satisfied that the clause merits inclusion in the Bill and asks that the Assembly support amendment No 2, as proposed by the Minister. We thank him once again for his consideration.

Mr Sam Foster: I thank the Committee Chairperson for his remarks, and I thank everyone for their help and co-operation. I have nothing further to add to my earlier comments, only to thank the Environment Committee for supporting the amendment.
Question
New clause to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 (Interpretation)
Amendment No 3 made:
Amendment No 4 made:
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 (Amendment and repeals)
Amendment No 5 made:
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Long Title
Amendment No 6 made: 
"placing on district councils a general duty to make arrangements for continuous improvement in the way in which their functions are exercised". — [Mr Foster.]
Long title, as amended, agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Local Government (Best Value) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Regional Transportation Strategy

Mr Peter Robinson: I beg to move
That this Assembly takes note of the proposed regional transportation strategy consultation paper published on 4 February 2002.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to bring to Members’ attention the consultation paper on the proposed regional transportation strategy, which I am issuing today for public comment. This is the latest stage of my Department’s consultation on strategic transportation issues. I want to thank those in the House and the many local councillors and their key stakeholders who have already given their views to inform the policy development process.
The active engagement of the Committee for Regional Development over the past 18 months has been extremely welcome in helping to shape our proposals. There are a number of other key individuals to whom I wish to record appreciation, and I intend to do that, with your permission, Mr Speaker, when winding up.
If Members cast their minds back to June 2000, they will recall the debate on the state of our transportation assets when the House unanimously called for increased funding for public transport and roads. Since then, increased funding has been allocated to address the immediate needs of our railways, a decision informed by the work of the railways task force.
The Assembly has also voted additional funds for capital road schemes, reflecting the widely recognised need for increased investment, which the then Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mark Durkan, readily acknowledged in his September statement to the Assembly on the draft Budget. The proposed 10-year regional transportation strategy identifies strategic transportation investment priorities and considers potential additional sources of funding. Today I want to outline some of the main initiatives contained in the proposed strategy and the expected key outcomes that they would bring about.
There are exciting possibilities such as the pilot rapid transit scheme for the Belfast metropolitan area, over £200 million of strategic highway improvements, elimination of much of the serious road maintenance backlog, the introduction of a new bookable, accessible rural transport system, more quality bus corridors, upgraded rail services and better use of information technology. However, these initiatives will require significant investment, and we have to consider where the necessary funds might come from. Before turning to the proposal, it is worth reminding ourselves of the wider context in which we start and how the proposed regional transportation strategy will integrate into the overall strategic development of the region.
Just over four months ago, the Assembly adopted the regional development strategy ‘Shaping Our Future’. It acknowledged the critical contribution that improved transportation infrastructure can make to the region’s future success, so the regional transportation strategy is a vital component of that. Its purpose is to support the regional development strategy and move over a 10-year period towards achieving a long-term transportation vision, which — I am sure everyone remembers — is to have a modern, sustainable and safe transportation system that benefits society, the economy and the environment and that actively contributes to social inclusion and everyone’s quality of life. It is essential to recognise that unless significant additional funds are secured, the regional transportation strategy will not be able to do this. However, I will return to this point later.
The five main objectives of the proposed strategy are to protect the environment, to improve safety, to facilitate economic growth, to improve accessibility and to foster integration, both with other Government policies and between different modes of transport. In addition, tackling social need, promoting social inclusion and ensuring an equitable and balanced strategy across the region have been integral considerations throughout the development of the proposed strategy. My Department has given specific consideration to the needs of people in rural areas, as well as those with distinct transport needs, including people with disabilities and older people.
Issues of distribution and equity, affordability and financial sustainability, practicality and public acceptability are integral to the methodology that has underpinned the development of the strategy. A draft equality impact assessment has also been carried out on the proposed strategy and is being issued today for public comment.
In section 6.5, Members will see that my Department has sought to identify the main inter-relationships with other Departments, initiatives and policies. The document acknowledges not only the contribution that such policies might make to the achievement of the transportation objectives, but also highlights the likely impact of the proposed strategy on other departmental priorities.
In relation to funding requirements and potential sources, I have already said that there is widespread acceptance that our current transportation assets are in poor condition following years of underinvestment. What is more, in transportation spend per capita Northern Ireland is currently well behind other regions of the UK, which in turn are significantly behind the transportation investment that European countries are making. Inevitably, Northern Ireland will fall even further behind, unless transportation investment is increased significantly.
If funding were to continue at current levels, the transportation system that would result would seriously undermine the social and economic goals of the regional development strategy agreed by the House only four months ago. The proposed strategy, therefore, assumes a funding level of £950 million above the existing level, which reflects the 2000 spending review outcome extrapolated over the 10-year period. Although that represents a considerable funding increase, I want to make it clear that the proposed regional transportation strategy will not achieve the regional development strategy transportation vision but will take a significant step towards it.
We have to remember that the regional development strategy is set in a 25-year time frame. If the scale of resources assumed in the 10-year proposed regional transportation strategy were to be continued over 25 years, the regional development strategy transportation vision could be achieved.
The potential sources of funding for the assumed additional £950 million are identified and discussed in detail in section 4.3 of the consultation paper. These include additional funds of £500 million from Executive programme funds and/or enhanced public expenditure baselines, increased developers’ contributions to the value of £80 million and other funding from the private sector notionally put at £325 million.
Members will be interested to note that I have recently established a dedicated infrastructure funding division in the Department for Regional Development that will explore the scope and feasibility of an increase in the role of the private sector in helping to address the serious deficiencies in our regional infrastructure.
I will now discuss the main features of the proposed strategy and the key outcomes for different transport modes and particular groups. I do not propose to list the detailed initiatives of the proposed strategy, which are presented in section 5 of the consultation paper and which Members will have had the opportunity to study. I have already mentioned some of the noteworthy proposals and emphasise that the proposals taken as a whole represent a balanced and appropriate strategy for the four areas identified — the regional strategic transport network, the Belfast metropolitan area, other urban areas and rural areas.
The relative indicative funding by area is shown in the pie chart on page 50, and the split of expenditure reflects the proposed response to the different transportation needs identified through consultation in the preparation of the proposed strategy. The expected outcomes of the proposed strategy are presented in some detail in section 6, showing the impact on different groups of people and by different transport modes. The key outcomes are reflected in the targets that are associated with the strategy. I draw Members’ attention to several of the targets that have been set for 2012.
Bus targets include: an average age of buses of no more than eight years; an increase in Citybus patronage of 25% over that of 2001; and new Ulsterbus route networks in all towns. Rail targets include the replacement of all trains by new trains, and a rail patronage increase of 50% over that of 2001, with the exception of the Enterprise service. Targets for highways include: the completion of 10 bypasses; 30 additional kilometres of dual carriageway; 30 kilometres of widened carriageway; and eight major junction improvements on the regional strategic transport network. One further target is the provision of new rural public transport services to serve isolated communities and mobility-impaired residents.
I have highlighted some of the key issues in the consultation paper, and I have tried to convey the importance that I attach to the need for major transportation investment. Although the outcome for transportation will ultimately be determined in the budgetary process, the case for investment in that area is irresistibly strong, and the proposals that are presented today are earthed in the reality of the achievable.
I hope that the Assembly will note that significant progress has been made towards the development of the regional transportation strategy, and I welcome the opportunity to listen carefully to Members’ initial views.

Mr Alban Maginness: On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Minister for the manner in which he and departmental officials ensured that the Regional Development Committee was kept informed and was consulted throughout the development of the regional transportation strategy.
The Regional Development Committee has taken an active and sustained interest in the development of the strategy. It has taken its responsibilities seriously, and, for that reason, its members have only recently returned from a fact-finding tour of public transport and traffic-management systems of several European cities. That was a particularly useful visit, which demonstrated what can be achieved not only with high levels of funding, but with well-thought-out policies and properly managed implementation plans.
If the regional transportation strategy is to succeed, it is vital that the proposed funding level of an additional £950 million is made available. That presents a challenge to the House and to the Executive in particular. However, if Members recognise the importance of developing our infrastructure and the extent of underinvestment in roads and public transportation over the last 30 years, we must rise to the challenge. I appreciate that there are many pressing needs, in particular, the Health Service and education. Nevertheless, we must not underestimate the benefit of a well-maintained transportation system to our long-term social, environmental and economic well-being.
The economy will benefit from less traffic congestion. The transportation of goods and services will be quicker and cheaper, and thus the local economy will be more competitive on this island and internationally.
That has greater significance when we consider that 99% of our freight is transported by road. An improved, efficient and attractive public transport system will have a positive impact on the tourist industry; it will make the transportation of freight quicker and cheaper, reducing congestion and opening employment and services to all. It will also make a significant contribution to improving social inclusion, which is a key governmental priority. In many rural and urban areas, approximately 30% of families do not have access to private transportation.
An effective public transportation system will bring benefits, if indirectly, to the Health Service.
Northern Ireland has the highest rate of road accidents and fatalities anywhere in the United Kingdom. If more people travelled on public transport, with a corresponding decrease in car usage, that would have a positive impact which would, in turn, reduce pressures on the Health Service. Consequently, given that the regional transportation strategy and its parent strategy, the regional development strategy, affect every aspect of society, we must approach it without sectional interests in mind. We must take a holistic approach and consider how the strategy will benefit the whole of Northern Ireland.
I want to turn to some of the key elements of the regional transportation strategy. The consultation document outlines the funding that will be available in the four areas during the next 10 years. There is a pressing need for major investment in the regional strategic transport network. That is critical to ensuring that our major towns and cities are easily accessible while also allowing the efficient and timely transportation of people and freight.
A major step towards that goal was the announcement by the then acting First Minister, Sir Reg Empey, on 24 September 2001 of an additional £40 million to be made available for the trans-European network route from Larne to Belfast and from Newry to Dundalk. That was welcome. However, it is important that the transport needs of other main areas throughout the region, such as the north-west, are appropriately addressed. Derry is a key economic hub with a catchment area stretching to Strabane, Limavady and, indeed, Donegal. It is important, therefore, that the main arterial routes from Derry to Dublin and from Derry to Belfast are appropriately funded and maintained. Efforts must be made to exploit available EU funding for cross-border infrastructure development. Greater efforts must be made to determine whether there can be greater co-operation between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland on the trans-European network.
The potential for additional EU funding for infrastructure improvements appears to be underutilised in the regional transportation strategy. During the Committee for Regional Development’s visit to Europe it met with several officials from the European Commission. After those meetings the Committee concluded that there is insufficient emphasis on getting access to EU funding. The amount of EU funding estimated for infrastructure in the regional transportation strategy is minimal, comprising only £10 million of the £950 million of potential extra funding sources. That should be compared with the Republic of Ireland’s national development plan for 2000-06, which has estimated EU funding of 760 million euros — that is approximately £456 million. That represents 13% of the overall total expenditure on transportation. Northern Ireland’s estimate for EU funding is derisory.
Given the financial pressures facing Northern Ireland, I commend the Minister for Regional Development and the Department for embracing the challenge by setting up a division to examine alternative sources of funding. That is vital. The Minister is taking a leading role in trying to access alternative sources. The Committee for Regional Development looks forward to exploring the Department’s findings on that. There is no doubt that raising funding from whatever source is a thorny issue, but an issue that must be accepted.
The Committee’s experience in Europe highlighted some of the novel ways in which finance is raised there. In France, for example, employers with more than 10 employees pay a levy that is ring-fenced for public transportation. In Germany there is a scheme whereby employers can contribute to meeting the cost of employees’ public transport fares. Increasingly in the Republic of Ireland tolls are being used to pay for major road schemes. I am not necessarily advocating such methods, but I am highlighting the range of initiatives that should be explored fully. Throughout Europe, there is a tremendous emphasis on the public financing of publicly owned transportation outlets. There is much less emphasis on private money in continental Europe than in these islands.
On examining the breakdown of anticipated expenditure over the next 10 years, a large percentage — 65% — is earmarked for the road network, with only 35% set aside for public transport. There is no doubt that the infrastructure has suffered from decades of underfunding. Sizeable investment is needed to bring many of the roads up to an acceptable standard.
The Committee’s visit to Europe has highlighted the benefit of investing heavily in public transport. A public transport system is dependent on a well-maintained transport infrastructure, but some road projects may be less important if there is a strong commitment to the reduction of car usage. That is a matter of traffic management that will, in turn, make a positive contribution to reducing bottlenecks and so reduce the need for such measures as road-widening schemes.
It is important that public transport targets be integrated properly with road capital and structural maintenance programmes. Increasing the road network to deal with current traffic levels may relieve congestion in the short term, but it will also facilitate increased car usage. We will inevitably end up back where we started — with congested roads, increased travelling time and high levels of pollution.
Public transport, particularly bus and rail transport, must be at the forefront of our plans in the development of sustainable transport that allows quicker journey times and easy and convenient access to services and employment. That is particularly crucial in rural areas. I note the inclusion in the regional transportation strategy of £31·5 million that has been earmarked for demand- responsive transport services for the more remote rural areas. That is to be warmly welcomed, and I hope that it will provide a new beginning for the provision of a quality public transport system in rural areas.
Undeniably, the rail network is under pressure. Indeed, the system would surely have collapsed if £105 million had not been invested in it following the report of the railways task force. Under the circumstances, the Department is to be commended for setting as targets the retention of the Whitehead service and the Derry to Ballymena line, as well as seeking to increase patronage by over 50% over the next 10 years. That is an important and innovative approach.
When the Committee recently visited the north-west, it experienced at first hand the poor state of the trains. It is self-evident that we cannot expect to increase rail patronage if the service is slow and of low quality — it defeats the very purpose of transportation. In the European cities that the Committee visited, a recurring theme was the high priority given to provision of an aesthetically attractive and clean public transportation system. Great emphasis was placed not only on buses but also on trams and light-rail systems, issues that we must explore. We will not attract people back to public transport unless it is seen as a viable alternative to the car. One has only to look at the success of the Belfast to Dublin Enterprise line to see what is possible.
I am reassured that the consultation document has set out expected outcomes, which are supported by a list of specific targets. I do not want to delay the House by going through the whole list of outcomes and targets, but I will take the opportunity to highlight one or two. The regional transportation strategy states that it was considered too difficult to forecast future patronage on Ulsterbus and, therefore, no target has been set for increased patronage. However, targets have been set for Citybus and rail travel. Given Northern Ireland’s limited rail network, Ulsterbus provides a valuable public service throughout Northern Ireland. We must, therefore, rise to the challenge and set clear and measurable targets for patronage on Ulsterbus. Such targets should not be viewed as stumbling blocks but as stepping stones to the provision of first-class public transportation system.
If we are to succeed in developing a sustainable public transportation system, we must also challenge ourselves to reduce car usage. We must set ourselves clear goals. Figures based on the 1998 survey show that traffic volumes in Northern Ireland are increasing almost twice as fast as those in Great Britain. The reduction of car usage is not about reducing passenger travel but about providing acceptable alternatives to the car. The regional development strategy also emphasised that approach, stating that the focus should be on moving people and goods rather than vehicles.
Although Northern Ireland’s rail network is limited, it is nevertheless a fundamental and important aspect of public transport. Ninety-nine per cent of all freight is transported by road. In present circumstances that is unavoidable, but the issue must be addressed. One possible solution is to encourage greater use of the rail network to transport goods, and a clear target should be set. Substantial investment may be required, but we cannot shirk that challenge. The European Commission recently produced a consultative White Paper that placed considerable emphasis on encouraging a modal shift in the transportation of goods from road to rail. That White Paper contains many useful proposals, and it should be studied in depth by the Department for Regional Development.
We all face many challenges. Nevertheless, our vision must be clear and sustained. Much of what is envisaged in the regional transportation strategy will require time and commitment. Many of the benefits will not be immediately tangible and will require all of us to remain focused on the long-term goals. We seek to create a major cultural shift in attitudes to car usage and public transport. That in itself will require time, and it places a burden on Government and on elected representatives at all levels in Northern Ireland to support and promote our vision. Understandably, people’s approach will not change unless there is visible commitment from Government.
On behalf of the Regional Development Committee, I welcome the public launch of the regional transportation strategy. I also welcome the commitment of the Minister and the Department to the vision outlined, and I look forward, with the Committee, to supporting the Department’s efforts to turn that vision into reality.

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has set aside two and a half hours for this debate, and I can advise the House that a goodly number of Members wish to participate, so although there is no specific time limit on Members’ speeches, I advise them to consider their Colleagues and not to stretch things too long. That is in respect of all Members, including the Member who has just spoken and the Member who is about to speak.

Mr Alan McFarland: I welcome the regional transportation strategy. It begins a process that we hope will properly organise our transport systems. It is a good start, and I thank the Minister and the Department for their close co-operation. The Committee has been involved since the beginning. It is a model of how these things should be done.
I will speak briefly about several elements of the strategy, beginning with the key elements. The strategy divides itself essentially into the Belfast commuter system, the key transport corridors, local urban systems for towns and villages and the rural area.
With regard to the Belfast commuter system, we must adopt the lessons learnt in Great Britain and Europe, as described by the Chairperson. In a very short time, roads in Northern Ireland will gum up, such is the rapid increase in car usage. With this strategy we have an opportunity to get our act together and produce a transport system that will begin to remove cars from our roads.
We should perhaps consider where we want to be in 10 years’ time, as the strategy hopes to do. We should examine how we want our railways and buses to be in 10 years’ time, particularly in the Belfast area.
It is hoped that the flagship rail line from Bangor to Belfast will come on stream early next year. The rail is currently being re-laid. New trains to service that line are due to arrive early next year. It gives us an opportunity to see what can be done, because, as the Chairperson said, we will not persuade people to get out of their cars unless we produce a public transport system that they will want to travel on. The line to Bangor will give us an opportunity to test that and to determine what percentage of daily commuters from Bangor can be persuaded to use the line to travel to Belfast.
The regional development strategy identifies two other development corridors; the first parallels the M1 from Lisburn, and the second parallels the M2 from Glengormley. Both corridors have rail systems. If complemented by the envisaged quality bus corridors serviced by fancy, comfortable, warm buses that people would wish to travel on, those would form additional key elements of the Belfast commuter system. The buses could be fitted with transponders to allow them to change traffic lights to ensure a straight run into town. A park and ride service, at a location such as the Saintfield Road, would allow people to park and be taken down a quality bus corridor to the centre of Belfast in 10 or 12 minutes. Those are important elements, and until they are in position, we are unlikely to persuade commuters to get out of their cars.
Having put these transport systems into being, we may need to look at some radical issues in the city centre. On the Committee’s visit to Europe, it saw that officials had drawn a ring around the centre of Strasbourg and ruled that — apart from resident parking — cars were not allowed. It was a dramatic measure that has had an amazing effect. An extremely smart transport system has been produced to go with it, and, as a result, the city has a much improved commuter system.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member will be aware that Strasbourg is a twelfth-century town with narrow streets, many of which are cobbled and considerably older than those in any other European state. Therefore, it made total sense to protect those environmental interests.

Mr Alan McFarland: That is correct; parts of Strasbourg are quite small. However, parts of it are extremely large, because those in power at that time wanted large streets on which to march their armies up and down. Therefore, some areas of Strasbourg lend themselves aptly to both cars and trams, but there are many smaller areas. Of course, Belfast has Pottinger’s Entry, and a bus could not be driven along it.
We should consider measures such as "no car zones" and congestion charging. If we had a fancy transport system, we could dissuade people from driving to the city centre by increasing parking charges so that it would be much cheaper to pay for public transport than for the daily car-parking fee.
Key transport corridors are critical to the freight industry, and I welcome the proposed changes to the Westlink. We have two motorways; one comes from the direction of Londonderry, the other from Armagh/ Dungannon. They meet at the Westlink, and the entire thing gums up. How we did not spot that problem earlier, I do not know. I hope it will be sorted out, allowing freight and cars to be pushed through that area much quicker. Those motorways are key corridors, and commuter systems on them should free up the Westlink and allow for increased freight use.
We must also consider — and my Colleagues from West Tyrone are familiar with this — that, if we build a hospital in either Enniskillen or Omagh, there must be roads between those places to allow medical vehicles to travel in a sensible manner. That should be examined in the context of key transport corridors.
We will not get people in rural areas to stop using their cars. However, the rural transport initiatives, which involve the use of minibuses and smaller vehicles, are working well. We should consider co-ordinating our school buses. We have a crazy system whereby the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety runs buses for patients, the Department of Education runs school buses for part of the day, and the public transport system operates the rest of the bus service. Surely we can get our act together to co-ordinate those services and make more effective use of our transport system?
Co-ordination is the main lesson that I learnt from Europe. The Minister is trying to introduce a cross- ticketing system, which would allow passengers to buy a ticket to use any available transport system. We have seen such a system in action in Europe and it is very impressive. People would not have to run between stations to buy different tickets; they would be able to buy one ticket to travel from A to B.
I am worried about the lack of co-ordination and management of public transport. For example, when I lived in Donaghadee, my daughter travelled to school in Belfast every day. On her return journey, she arrived in Bangor by train two minutes after the scheduled departure of the bus to Donaghadee. At what level of management was that organised? The chap who organised the bus schedules operated from Newtownards, and the organiser of the train schedules operated from Bangor. They did not appear to speak to each other. We complained about the matter and it was finally sorted out. However, I am worried that such an attitude should be taken to public transport services. The managers of the transport system must change their approach. The Assembly hopes to co-ordinate the service and wants a higher degree of management and organisation to back up the new system.
I will speak briefly about finance. As the Committee is aware, I was concerned that too much was expected of the Executive programme funds. In response, the Minister and the Department revised their approach slightly. I am not confident that the Executive programme funds will be available to support the service in the substantial amounts that the plan envisaged. It is good to see that the Minister and the Department are now examining other sources of funding to back the strategy. The strategy is important and it must be funded, but it would be dangerous to overemphasise the role of the Executive programme funds.
Another lesson that was learnt from Europe was that we must keep public transport in public ownership. That may be difficult, but the lessons of privatisation are not positive. Having said that, in most European countries, those who use public transport systems pay for them. We are facing that fact here. The days when the public purse would cough up to cover the full cost of the system are probably gone. We must consider the need for increased contributions from the travelling public. We may need to examine such fairly avant-garde systems as — horror of horrors — toll roads. If we want a good public transport system, someone must pay for it. Assembly Members may soon need to get their heads around some nasty choices on how we will pay not only for transport but for water and sewerage services. We can have either bad services or good services, which cost money.
I commend the regional transportation strategy — it is to be welcomed.

Mr William Hay: I welcome the document, and I concur with other Members’ remarks. The Committee worked well with the Minister and his departmental officials on the document. I congratulate the officials who continually attended the meetings to brief the Committee on the document. This is a 10-year blueprint for transportation in Northern Ireland generally. Historically, Northern Ireland has suffered from a lack of investment in transportation infrastructure, and there is no doubt that our transportation strategy has been underfunded for decades. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development, Mr McFarland, said that, at the moment, nothing would encourage people to use public transport instead of their cars. With this blueprint, I hope that we can examine alternative funding measures. Everyone in Northern Ireland appreciates that something desperately needs to be done about our public transport system.
The Committee for Regional Development has experienced the train service from Belfast to Londonderry. Not long ago, Committee members travelled in a carriage that had missing windows; that is down to bad management of our public transport system. It was a fairly cold journey for some of the Committee members, but I told them that if they really want to experience public transport, they must use it and see it for themselves.
There is something drastically wrong with a train service that takes well over two hours to travel from Londonderry to Belfast. I drive from Londonderry to Belfast and back practically every morning, and it takes me about two hours. If there were a good train service, I would use it rather than travel in my own car. This issue will be debated in the Chamber for months to come.
I welcome not only the document that has been presented to the Assembly today but the timetable contained within it. In the past, many documents have been written about our transportation strategy in Northern Ireland. We have all received glossy brochures with no real action behind them so I therefore welcome the timetable for action contained in the document.
Future funding for transport systems in Northern Ireland and the role that the public sector may play in that are important issues too. If we, as public representatives in the Assembly, are to make the document come alive in the coming months, hard decisions must be made concerning the funding of the strategy. We must examine seriously how we can get the funding to back the strategy. There is pressure on the Health Service and the education system, but without a proper transportation strategy Northern Ireland will suffer economically and socially in the long run.
I wish to raise the issue of a separate transportation strategy for the north-west, which the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development mentioned briefly.
Not so long ago our Committee had a meeting in Londonderry, and we seriously drove the point that it would be vitally important for the north-west of the Province that the Minister and his Department look —

Mr Speaker: Order. I have to bring the Member’s remarks to a close for the present, as it is now time for questions to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The debate will resume immediately after Question Time, which is likely to be 4 pm. If the Member wishes, he may complete his remarks at that stage, before we move on to the rest of the debate.

First Minister and Deputy First Minister

I wish to inform the House that question 8, in the name of Mr McMenamin, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

Single Equality Bill

1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the introduction of the single equality Bill.
(AQO717/01)


10. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on its plans for the single equality Bill.
(AQO738/01)


Before answering questions, I want to formally advise the Assembly about the absence of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister from Question Time today. The Assembly will no doubt be aware that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are in the United States of America at present. They addressed the World Economic Forum yesterday, and on Wednesday they will be opening the office for the Executive and the Assembly in Washington. Therefore, Mr Haughey and I are acting on behalf of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister today.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will group questions 1 and 10 together. We are committed to the introduction of a single equality Bill, which will harmonise anti-discrimination law, as far as practicable, and will extend into new categories, including age and sexual orientation. It will enable us to consider important developments in Britain and the Republic, and in European Union Directives.
At their meeting on 18 January, the Executive considered how the work involved in bringing forward proposals for a single equality Bill could best be taken forward. This is a highly complex area of law, and it is essential that we get it right. We must properly implement the recent European Directives dealing with discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, belief, sexual orientation, age or disability. When we drew up our original timetable, the Framework Directive had not been agreed. We now know what that Directive is, and it raises complex issues, particularly in relation to age, which must be resolved. We must also take into account new Directives on gender discrimination currently being developed.
In addition, we will be taking advice on those and other issues that have been raised. We have taken into account the consultation process, which requested from us further detailed consultation on our proposals and on specific issues. We are determined that this legislation will implement all our obligations and that it will be effective. A policy paper, setting out proposals for the Bill, will be published for consultation by the end of this year. In the meantime, we will meet our current EU commitments by introducing affirmative resolution regulations in the Assembly early next year. Also, early next year, we will consult separately on age discrimination and, following agreement, on the new Directive on sex discrimination. All this will ensure that the single equality Bill is taken forward in a way that takes account of emerging issues and, it is to be hoped, that provides good, workable law.


I thank the Minister for his answer. Notwithstanding his comments about the complexity of the issue, does the Minister agree that this Bill is very welcome as it will strengthen equality law in this country, and that any delay can only be detrimental?


The aim is to have a simple law and to have equality. We wish for the best equality possible and equality of opportunity. That is what we are committed to. I recognise the concern about slowdown, but I repeat again that we are committed fully to the single equality Bill. We are having consultation about it, and more time is needed to consider specific areas. The people who are raising concerns about this matter should remember that the development of similar legislation in the Republic of Ireland took eight years.


Can the Minister give an assurance that the single equality Bill will not lead to a reduction in protection? Can he give the reasons for the revision of the timetable in the first place?


I do not wish to repeat what I said only a moment ago about why we are taking time and why there is a revision because of EU Directives, but the Member appears to be concerned about other aspects of our performance. Let me give some examples. Great Britain has merely published a consultation document, in December 2001, on the implementation of EC Directives. In relation to age there are only general comments, although Great Britain intends to consult more fully on age discrimination this year. However, so far, many of the issues are unresolved.
I turn to the neighbouring jurisdiction on this island, the Republic of Ireland. Recently it has concentrated on a review of the grounds of discrimination covered in the current Acts, but there has been no public consultation so far about ways to implement the EC Directives. Therefore, in comparison with Britain and the Republic of Ireland, and given the difficulties that I have explained, what the Executive and the Assembly are doing with respect to equality of opportunity and the equality Bill is the best way forward for everybody in Northern Ireland.


Will the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister address civil rights for members of the Loyal Orders — who are prevented from walking on certain roads — in the single equality Bill, as a matter of discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief, in keeping with the recent European Directives? Will the Assembly be given time to debate the Directive that deals with religion and belief?


The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is aware of inter-community tensions in Northern Ireland, which manifest themselves geographically in the areas that have been mentioned and, typically, through a process of parading. We want to see one community in Northern Ireland, where all diversities are celebrated in peace, harmony and understanding of each other. We support the local dialogue that is taking place in those key areas to resolve the disputes and division in our society. The issue of parading, in Drumcree or on the Garvaghy Road, for example, is a matter for the Northern Ireland Office and the Parades Commission.
As regards discussing and debating, the Assembly will, of course, debate those aspects of the equality Bill as well as aspects of employment discrimination, goods, facilities and services through the normal legislative process. There will be ample time for debate on those issues during that process.


What priority will be given to disability rights, and what role will be adopted to support and encourage disabled people in 2003, the European year of people with disabilities?


The Executive will make their response to the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force, and that will be reflected in the single equality Bill — for example, we hope to extend the definition to include HIV and cancer, and we will ensure that that work is taken forward. We generally have a responsibility for the Disability Rights Task Force, and we are examining the recommendations that were issued for consultation last year. This year we are committed to improving civil rights for disabled people. In order to promote social inclusion, we will develop a strategy to implement the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force.
We are discussing the arrangements for 2003 — the European year of people with disabilities — with colleagues in Britain, and we will consider how best to take that forward in Northern Ireland when more information is available.

Executive Meeting: Date and Agenda

2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline (a) the date of the next Executive meeting; and (b) the issues on the agenda.
(AQO715/01)


It is regrettable that a question such as this must come forward from a party involved in the Administration. It derives from the peculiar attitude that that party takes to attendance at Executive meetings. The next meeting of the Executive is scheduled to take place on Thursday 14 February. It is not the policy of the Administration to disclose in advance what issues will be raised at this or any other Executive meeting.


Can the junior Minister confirm whether the Executive have discussed or intend to discuss the contents of the Chief Constable’s response to the Police Ombudsman’s report into Omagh? Can he shed some light on the Deputy First Minister’s weekend comments that he wants an outside investigator put in overall charge of this inquiry? Is that an Executive view? Is that the view of the Deputy First Minister, as opposed to the First Minister, or is that a party view? Does the junior Minister agree that the divisive comments by the Deputy First Minister at the weekend will not only further divide the board but are regarded as "Durkan’s destruction plan" to defy consensus on that board?


I can neither confirm nor deny that the Executive have discussed these matters. I do not attend Executive meetings, and I can make no comment on Mr Paisley Jnr’s other contentious remarks.


Following the judgement of Mr Justice Coghlin, can the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister confirm that it remains in order to withhold Executive papers uncovering and revealing what is going on in the Executive Committee from DUP Ministers?


I can confirm that the judgement of Mr Justice Coghlin makes it clear that the withholding of Executive papers from DUP Ministers is a reasonable response to the announced DUP policy of taking up ministerial office to enable it to uncover and reveal what is going on at the heart of Government. The declaration by the court in this instance related only to the withholding of a specific paper. The paper in question was issued to the DUP Ministers on Monday, 12 February 2001.


Further to the original question, given the obvious interest from several Members of the DUP in the Executive’s agenda, can the junior Minister advise the House if at any time, as other Executive Ministers do, the DUP Ministers or their advisers ever communicate their position or view on any matter in respect of the Executive’s agenda, for example, in writing or by any other method of communication?


I am not aware of any such communications.

Grant Award Fraud

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what action has been taken to eradicate fraud undertaken by unrepresentative "cross-community groups" claiming grant awards.
(AQO752/01)


The vast majority of community relations funding is awarded to cross-community groups and projects. Single identity groups may be funded where the aim is to promote cross-community interaction and mutual respect. Grants are awarded where projects meet the eligibility criteria. The assessment process includes a range of checks: confirmation that the group is formally constituted; provision of a list of names of its board or management committee; and an examination of its financial position. All projects receiving funding are subject to regular monitoring to check on progress and to ensure that the agreed aims and objectives are being met.
In addition, it is a standard condition of grant that any documents, information or papers relating to a project must be provided on request and that any request to inspect or carry out audits is facilitated. Information provided on the application forms for grants and interim funding claims may also be made available to other Departments and agencies for the purposes of preventing and detecting crime. Applicants are made aware of that before accepting any offer of grant.


Does the Minister agree that a problem could arise because a number of community groups that are not cross-community structured could benefit from cross-community funding? Within the overall remit of the community relations based funding, is the Minister currently investigating proceedings arising from the detection of fraudulent applications? Is any action being pursued to return funding sent out in error?


While it would be very serious if any group obtained funds on the basis of a deliberate misrepresentation, the availability of community relations funding is not confined to cross-community groups. In certain circumstances, funding may be provided to single-identity groups. Because of particular tensions and issues, those groups are working in a community where it may be necessary to prepare the ground for subsequent meaningful dialogue and interaction between the communities. Therefore the guiding principle is that the applicants, whether they are cross-community or single identity, must be able to demonstrate how their project can and will contribute to improving community relations. The key aim is to improve community relations and does not preclude the funding of a single group. However, the guiding principle must be clear.
There are currently no investigations proceeding on recovery of fraudulent applications.


Does the Minister agree that the vast majority of community groups have, on a purely voluntary basis, played a vital role in the process of cross- community bridge building? Can he assure the House that he will continue to encourage the work of such groups, despite the disgraceful actions of the very few who commit fraud?


Yes, I happily endorse what the Member has said. Work has been done, and I have no doubt it will continue to be done, at a community level in Northern Ireland. Too often those groups — and individuals — are not recognised for their work, and we commend that work. We recognise that as we in the Assembly are trying to work better together, those in the community will also work better together. We must recognise the need to do this, and I pay tribute to the work being done by community groups.

Visit to South Antrim

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have any plans to visit South Antrim.
(AQO719/01)


There are currently no plans for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a joint visit to South Antrim in the near future.


It is interesting to see that the Ministers can be brief on some responses.
Since there are no plans to visit South Antrim, can the Minister explain why the legislative programme seems to have disappeared from sight, and why so few targets in this year’s Programme for Government have been met? Ten months into the year, only about a quarter of the targets have been achieved. Can he explain to the Assembly and to my constituents in South Antrim how he proposes to improve matters in the future?


Do you propose to allow that question, Mr Speaker?


There seems to be time to answer it, if there is a wish.


There is plenty of time to answer it, Mr Speaker. I raise a question over the very tenuous connection between that supplementary question and the original question. However, that is a matter within your province.


I assume that the question from the Member is that if the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister do not have time to visit South Antrim, it is because there are preparations in the other areas which the Member has raised.


I am well aware that that was what he was saying.
It is my view, and that of the Members of the Administration, that the criticism which has arisen in the last couple of weeks about the volume of legislation in the Assembly is very unfair and does not give credit to the Executive and the Assembly for the huge volume of work that has been undertaken.
A look at the Programme for Government, the Budgets, the work of the Committees and all of the other tasks that have been undertaken will show that the volume of work that has been put through the Assembly is very creditable indeed.
Since devolution, 23 Bills have been enacted, touching on very important aspects of everyday life in Northern Ireland. We have had complex pieces of legislation dealing with ground rents, child support and pensions. That record compares very well with the Scottish Parliament, which, in the equivalent period, has passed 29 pieces of legislation, and which has had much less uncertainty and many fewer alarms and excursions to deal with than the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have had here.
On 27 September 2001, Sir Reg Empey and Séamus Mallon wrote to Members to inform them of the legislative programme for the 2001-02 session. To date, one Bill has received Royal Assent and two are awaiting it. A further two Bills have completed, or are about to complete, Committee Stage. It had been hoped that more Bills would have been introduced into the Assembly by this stage of the session. Ministers are examining what can be done to expedite matters. However, a great deal of pre-introduction work has already been carried out, particularly in Committees, on the development of legislation for the programme. As a result of that, we anticipate that five new Bills will be introduced before the end of the month.
There are other points that need to be made in this regard. First of all, when comparing this Assembly with the Scottish Parliament or the Executive with the Scottish Executive, it should be noted that, in our case, the inter-party Government is based on statute. In Scotland, it is based on a voluntary coalition of the participating parties. A voluntary coalition involves the preparation of an agreed programme for government beforehand. In our circumstances, the preparation of a Programme for Government had to be agreed after the appointment of the Executive.
Under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, consultation is required of the Executive in relation to all matters that come before the House by way of proposals for legislation. Consultation has been much more extensive here than is normally the case, where a good deal of the debate and discussion of Bills takes place in the House. We have had a great deal of that through our consultation process, and through Committee work, before Bills have come to the House.
In the current session, a Bill dealing with social security fraud has been enacted. Two Bills dealing with industrial development and the restructuring of IDB and LEDU, and a Bill on game preservation, have all passed their Final Stage. Two more are completing their Committee Stages. I submit to the House that the record of this Assembly and the Executive in terms of business undertaken is very creditable indeed.


I do not think that the Member or the House can complain that the Minister avoided the question.


My question is a little more focused on the constituency of South Antrim. Will the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister consider holding a future meeting of the British-Irish Council in what is undoubtedly the most attractive of all constituencies in the United Kingdom, thus opening to a wider audience a perspective of South Antrim likely to assist in attracting new commercial investment and more tourist visitors?


I will make the views of the hon Member known to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and, through them, to the Executive. However, I cannot make any commitment on behalf of the Executive at this time.

Larne: Inter-community Relations

5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to give its assessment of work associated with improving inter-community relations in the borough of Larne since the involvement of the Central Community Relations Unit and the Northern Ireland Mediation Network in the area.
(AQO757/01)


What I previously said to Mr Dallat, I say also in the context of the Larne area. We would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation, and that of the Executive, for the effort and commitment of all those engaged in this initiative, and to assure them of our support in their endeavours on behalf of the entire community of Larne.
The Member will be aware that with the support of the Central Community Relations Unit, Larne District Partnership Board convened exploratory meetings with Larne Borough Council officials, the Community Relations Council and the Mediation Network to consider what could be done to improve community relations in the borough. As a result, proposals emerged for an initial consultative process to be taken forward by the Mediation Network. From this process, steps have been taken to establish a forum for social development with the aim of improving understanding in the community of Larne.
There have been three meetings of the forum with differing representations at each meeting. The meetings are co-ordinated, chaired and facilitated by the Mediation Network. During the initial meetings, the forum discussed the work that would need to be carried out; it also considered widening its membership. Consideration should also be given to having as balanced a group as possible representing gender, religion, age, rural and urban representation. Although time-consuming, the initiative and process to date have produced positive engagement with individuals representing key constituencies in the Larne area. It has obtained the strong support of Larne Borough Council.
The Mediation Network is engaged in discussions with a view to the forum’s meeting again in early April 2002. It is hoped to elicit support from local public representatives to establish an even stronger core group of citizens around whom a longer-term forum can be established and, more importantly, sustained. At this point, it would be premature to produce a detailed assessment of the initiative. However, as with many things in this context — this applies to Mr Watson’s and to Mr Dallat’s questions among others — ultimately the key to improving relations in communities in any borough, urban or rural, lies in the hands of the people whom we are trying to facilitate. In this case they are the people and the elected representatives of Larne.


Does the Minister acknowledge that improving local community infrastructure in areas where it is weak often plays an important role in improving community relations? Is his Department aware of the importance of sustaining such projects as Community Empowerment Larne?


We recognise the importance of empowerment — it is a phrase that is now in vogue — and capacity building to local people. The local community plays an important role in improving community relations. We accept that there is a weak community infrastructure in the Member’s area. We hope that our work will lay a foundation upon which Larne — and other areas where there has been division and weakness in coming together — can build in order to facilitate their growing together as one community in future.

PFI/PPP: Alternative Funding Opportunities

6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister whether the Economic Policy Unit is exploring, in partnership with the Department of Finance and Personnel, alternative funding opportunities to PFI/PPP; and to make a statement.
(AQO726/01)


A high-level working group, which is jointly chaired by the Economic Policy Unit in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Department of Finance and Personnel, was established in September 2001. It was established to fulfil our Programme for Government commitment to review opportunities for the use of private finance in all major service provision and infrastructure projects, to increase investment and to provide innovative and value for money solutions through public-private partnerships and private finance initiatives.
The working group includes representatives from the public, private and voluntary sectors and from trade unions. As part of the working group’s deliberations, consideration is being given to alternative and complementary funding opportunities to public-private partnerships (PPP) that may redress the investment deficit in the infrastructure of our public services. Those include bond finance, user charging, asset sales and not-for-profit structures.
However, it must be recognised that the present public expenditure control regime, under which all the devolved Administrations operate, places certain constraints on the way in which funds for investment can be raised. For example, direct borrowing by publicly funded bodies cannot lead to any increased expenditure within the confines of the Northern Ireland departmental expenditure limit. The working group has planned to complete its review and submit a report to Ministers by the end of March.


I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. My question, following on from that, relates to alternative funding sources. The Minister and his office will be aware that at the time of the Good Friday negotiations —


Unfortunately, I regret that by putting his substantive parenthesis at the start, the Member has lost the time in which to make his supplementary question, because the 30 minutes are up.
3.00pm
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Regional Development

I wish to inform Members that question 16, in the name of Mrs Annie Courtney, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

Transport Volume (Mid-Ulster Area)

1. asked the Minister for Regional Development what assessment he has made in relation to public transport volume in the mid-Ulster area.
(AQO746/01)


The three Ulsterbus depots that provide most of the bus services in the mid-Ulster area are at Dungannon, Magherafelt and Omagh. During 2000-01, buses from these three depots provided almost five million passenger journeys. However, this volume shows a decline in the number of passenger journeys from the previous year. This is most disappointing, but similar to the long-term pattern of declining bus usage throughout Northern Ireland.
The rural transport fund operated by my Department currently supports three Ulsterbus routes in the mid- Ulster area. The fund also assists four local community partnerships to provide transport for people with reduced mobility in mid-Ulster. However, as the fund amounts to only £1·6 million this year to support rural transport services throughout Northern Ireland, the level of assistance that it can provide is obviously limited.


In the light of the Minister’s statement, does he not agree that the public transport infrastructure is insufficient in my constituency? In consequence, will the Minister further concede that isolated persons may pay similar amounts of road tax as others do, but for an inferior service, and that that is unacceptable?


I accept that the present public transport system throughout Northern Ireland is unsatisfactory. That is why, in the regional transportation strategy that we are currently debating, there is a proposal to increase significantly the amount of public funding that is available. In that sense, mid-Ulster is not unique, although there are special problems with rural areas. However, the regional transportation strategy has identified a scheme for rural areas, and I hope that the hon Gentleman will read it and take it to his community for their comments as well.

Equality Impact Assessment (Antrim/Knockmore Line)

2. asked the Minister for Regional Development what assessment he has made of the number of passengers using the Antrim/Knockmore line following the equality impact assessment carried out in November 2001.
(AQO762/01)


Based on figures gathered by Translink from May to November 2001, indications are that the patronage of rail services on the Antrim to Knockmore line is very low at less than 80 passenger journeys per day; that is 40 return journeys. At its reduced level of service Translink currently operates 30 weekday and seven weekend services on this line. I hope to issue the equality impact assessment on the proposed discontinuance of the line next week.


Will the Minister say how much it costs, per annum, to run the Antrim to Knockmore line and what efforts he has he made to secure the funding to maintain this line and not have it mothballed?


I understand that the track maintenance for the line costs about £215,000 per annum, and the funding required is much more acute. If we have to maintain a service on the Antrim to Knockmore line beyond the life of the existing track bed, which I understand will probably be about three years in present circumstances, we will be talking about £13 million to replace that. We share train services between Antrim/ Knockmore and the Antrim Bleach Green line. Full service on both lines would require another two trains involving a capital requirement of £19 million. In the 2000 spending review the Department for Regional Development sought funding to maintain the Antrim/ Knockmore line; however, it was not granted, and the Assembly voted for a Budget that did not include the continuance of that line.

Water Shortages

3. asked the Minister for Regional Development whether he will make a statement on projected water shortages in this calendar year.
(AQO734/01)

Water Supply in the South-East

17. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the water supply situation as a result of the lack of rainfall in the south-east of the Province.
(AQO743/01)


With the Speaker’s permission I shall take questions 3 and 17 together.
Impounding reservoirs in the north and west of the Province are almost full, and there are no concerns about the water supply in those areas. The Silent Valley reservoirs are much lower than normal due to the rainfall patterns during 2001, particularly between September and December when rainfall was only 58% of the average. At their lowest, the reservoirs fell to about 33% of their capacity. In February last year they were 97% full. However, the heavy rainfall over the past weeks, which can be identified with my ministerial statement, has improved the position. The reservoirs are now 50% full.


I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland will appreciate the irony of the Minister’s reply, when, to use a colloquialism, it has been "bucketing heavens hard" today. In recent days, business premises and homes have been flooded due to the incessant rain. Will the Minister agree that the biggest part of the problem is his Department’s lack of an effective leakage strategy? Further, will he confirm that up to 200 million litres of water a day are lost through leakage? Is this not an iniquitous loss of a vital resource? What strategy will the Minister approve to reduce water leakage to a more realistic figure of about 10% to 15%?


A day or two of heavy rain seems to give people the impression that the problem has disappeared. There has been significant rainfall over the past weeks, which coincides with my statement that the Department for Regional Development has a secret weapon to increase the volume of water in reservoirs. However, the water shortage is still with us. Last year at this time, the Silent Valley reservoirs were 97% full; at present they are 50% full. We need a sustained period of the Ulster weather that the Member referred to so that there will be no water shortage in the latter part of the summer.
The problem this year arises because of the unusually dry period and is not because of water leakage, which would have been consistent throughout the period. The Department for Regional Development does not automatically use the term "leakage" — we have, rather, "water that is unaccounted for". The distinction is that there are guesstimates as to how much water is used, because, although we know how much water leaves the reservoirs, we do not know exactly how much water our consumers receive because metering is not in place. The hon Gentleman is not, I am sure, advocating metering. An assessment is made about the consumers’ usage, and that may or may not be consistent with the formula being used.
I do not deny that there is leakage. What else can be expected from our dated infrastructure? It is assessed that about 12 million litres of water a day are lost from the Silent Valley. That is equal to about 2·7 million gallons, which would fill many swimming pools, as the hon Gentleman will know. The Water Service maintains a large rural network of over 25,000 km of water mains that are of variable quality and age, some over 100 years old. That network contains about six million joints, all of which have the potential to leak. An estimated one fifth of the assumed leakage occurs through customers’ pipe work.
There is a leakage strategy, and it is a departmental priority. Some £16·3 million has been spent on leakage reduction over the past three years, and a further £25 million will be spent in the next three years.


Mr Deputy Speaker, in thanking the Minister for his initial responses, may I ask him to further detail what measures he has put in place to ensure that the situation does not deteriorate in the coming weeks and months?


Because the reservoirs are keenly monitored, the Department was able to make an early call in response to the lower levels of water this year and to immediately implement a strategy to reduce the demand on the Silent Valley system. So far, that action has reduced demand from the normal amount of about 143 megalitres a day to the current level of 113 megalitres a day. The Water Service achieved that by putting its drought management plan into action.
Bore holes have been created to provide additional supplies, and more water is being taken from Lough Neagh to the Belfast area. Additional water is also being provided from Lough Island Reavey, which is also in the Mournes, and from the Annalong River. A combination of those measures has already reduced demand on the Silent Valley reservoirs and can further reduce it by 30%.
On the one hand, measures are being taken to reduce the pressure on the Silent Valley supply, and on the other, the Department is alerting the public on how it can help, through its water efficiency plan. Simple measures include the use of the "Hippo bag", an item that I am happy to not demonstrate fully in the Chamber. It is a simple bag which, when filled with water and put in a cistern, reduces by about one third the amount of water used to flush a toilet. Measures to reduce considerably the amount of water that is used include turning off taps while cleaning teeth or washing; the hon Gentleman taking a shower instead of a bath — I am not sure what demand he makes on water supplies — and washing dishes only in fully loaded dishwashers.
The Department is doing its bit, and the consumer can help. More prayers for the good, wet Ulster weather can also see us through. It is to be hoped that we will not need to introduce any measures.


Does the Minister agree that his statement and appeal to the public must have been remarkable, because it has barely stopped raining in the upper Mourne area since he made them? Can he apply those same semi-miraculous powers to solve the problems faced by the sheep farmers who have been denied grazing in that area?


The Member’s question is perhaps not directly related to the main question. Does the Minister care to answer it?


Perhaps it is relevant. Maybe the hon Member was suggesting that the sheep had drunk the water from the Silent Valley reservoirs. However, the Department has certain requirements on health standards. Members are aware of how dangerous cryptosporidium can be if it is introduced to a great extent. It is already present in water supplies, but not at a level that causes difficulties. Sheep that are around a reservoir catchment area would not help to keep that level down. That is one of the factors that the Department for Regional Development must take into consideration, and it always takes advice from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development on that.

Traffic Congestion (Sandyknowes Roundabout)

4. asked the Minister for Regional Development when he proposes to make further decisions regarding the congestion at Sandyknowes roundabout.
(AQO750/01)


The Roads Service is actively pursuing the investigation of options to alleviate the congestion experienced there during the morning peak period. It has commissioned a leading UK traffic consultant to undertake a major evaluation of the situation. Particular consideration has been given to two possible short-term options. These essentially involve controlling or limiting the number of vehicles permitted to enter the motorway system, thereby improving traffic flow on the main lines, and controlling the traffic speed on the motorway by introducing regulatory speed limits appropriate to traffic levels, thereby increasing the capacity of the system. These two concepts are used by road authorities in other countries, although their effectiveness depends on the complexity of the network in each case.
It must be recognised, however, that the real problem is that traffic demand at this interchange exceeds the existing road capacity. That is the case on many commuter routes during peak hours. It is likely, therefore, that significant improvements can be achieved only by a major scheme, probably involving an additional traffic lane from Sandyknowes to Greencastle. This aspect is also being considered by the consultant. His final report is due by the end of this month, and I hope to be able to make a statement on the Department’s proposals in the spring.


Can the Minister assure the House that he is committed to providing an efficient road infrastructure for the key northern transport corridor, which includes the M2 and the A26 from Belfast to Coleraine, given the increasing congestion at Sandyknowes and given that more than 15,000 vehicles travel from Coleraine to Glarryford each day on a slow single carriageway?


I accept fully the hon Member’s remarks. That is a well-used stretch of carriageway. The M2 motorway at Sandyknowes carries over 60,000 vehicles a day. There is a significant area of development at the roundabout. Therefore, I am not convinced that the measures we are considering at present can do anything more than improve things in an interim capacity. A major scheme is required. The Department has looked at that area and has taken several steps over the past number of years to improve the situation. However, ultimately it will require a major scheme, and that major scheme will require funding.


Anyone who listens to Seamus McKee, Wendy Austin and Conor Bradford presenting ‘Good Morning Ulster’, will know that Sandyknowes is not the only congested area. The traffic news is the same every day. There is also congestion on the Saintfield Road, at Tillysburn and on the Westlink at Broadway. Does the Minister plan to look at those areas as well, considering that he brought forward the transportation strategy and is committed to a 10-year plan?


I remind Members that if a question is asked about a specific area, it is not in order to have a geographical round robin. That has been said before. However, if the Minister does care to answer, he may.


Members will be able to go into detail on whatever issues they wish during the debate on the regional transportation strategy. However, those who listen to the traffic reports on ‘Good Morning Ulster’ will know that the Sandyknowes roundabout is frequently in the headlines in that section of the programme.
However, the Member is right to identify problems in several other areas. The Roads Service is always looking at how some busier sections of the road infrastructure can be improved. Undoubtedly, the regional transportation strategy will make many improvements. I recently met delegations from the Saintfield Road about the major problems in that area. Again, we are looking at what proposals can be brought forward to improve life for both motorists and residents in that area.


I was a little disappointed that the Minister’s response dwelt on the Roads Service. Given the difficulties in making any major improvements to the M2 and the Sandyknowes junction, is it not time that his Department expedited the building of a park-and-ride station to join the railway to the motorway at Ballymartin, a mile outside Templepatrick, thereby encouraging car drivers from Coleraine to switch to the train and avoid Sandyknowes altogether?


Again, that matter is closely associated with the regional strategy. My best chance of convincing motorists that it is better for them to use trains is to improve the railway network and to ensure the availability of good trains and buses that provide good services.
People will not be encouraged to use public transportation, whether rail or bus, unless there is a good dependable service, particularly for people coming to work. That is why the regional transportation strategy identifies a significant increase in the amount of funds that will be available for public transport. Indeed, the amount of funds that has been spent in the past 10 years will be doubled over the next 10 years.

Omagh Wastewater Treatment Works

5. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the expected start and completion dates for the construction of the proposed Omagh wastewater treatment works; and to make a statement.
(AQO748/01)


Last January, we announced that the new wastewater treatment works for Omagh should be constructed at Mountjoy, and not on the site of the existing works at Hunter’s Crescent. Considerable progress has been made with detailed studies to prepare for the construction of the works.
Preliminary land and planning investigations are ongoing, and the planning application will be submitted to the Planning Service later this month. Formal negotiations will begin shortly for the acquisition of land for the new works and access road. Subject to planning approval and completion of all land issues, it is expected that the contract for the design and construction of the new works will commence in October 2003. It will take two years to complete, and the estimated cost is £10 million.


Can the Minister assure me that the design process by Department for Regional Development officials is progressing? Can he also assure me that officials from the Department for Regional Development and the Department of the Environment will expedite the planning process?


I recently visited the existing Omagh wastewater treatment works and spoke with the team in the area about the proposals. The Member probably already knows that they are as enthusiastic as he is to move to the new order. The design proposals are well advanced. The next major stage is the planning stage, which is being given a fair wind by Omagh District Council. I am sure that the Member will also support it.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Is the Minister prepared to meet with residents’ representatives in the Strathroy, Derry Road, Hunter’s Crescent, Gortrush and Mountjoy areas of Omagh to listen to concerns about the relocation of the treatment works and how those matters can be approached?


I understood that people in those areas welcomed the Department’s proposal. If they have a concern, it is that the Department should get on with it as quickly as possible. We have taken some interim steps to ensure that some of their problems are dealt with. For example, when I was in the area, I was told of the flooding that can occur. As I understand it, more drainage tanks are being constructed so that the surrounding area does not have problems in times of heavy rainfall.
Interim steps are being taken to alleviate some of the area’s problems. Ultimately, however, those problems will be better resolved when the Department can proceed with the wastewater treatment works at the new site.

Bangor to Belfast Railway Line

6. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the progress and estimated completion date for the re-lay of the Bangor to Belfast railway line.
(AQO735/01)


Translink advised that the Bangor to Craigavad line was re-laid and brought into service, with effect from 14 January this year. Work is now taking place on the line in the other direction, from Craigavad to Bangor. The track has been lifted, and drainage works are under way. Bottom ballast is being installed, and the track re-laying machine recommenced operation on 27 January.
Re-railing work is also taking place on both lines between Craigavad and Belfast. In addition, drainage works will have to be carried out on sections of the lines between Craigavad and Holywood. That work, together with the replacement of sleepers, is due to commence shortly. All work is due for completion in April 2002.


I understand that the whole project is behind schedule. Phase 1 is taking the same length of time as was estimated for the entire project, and it is not yet complete. Will the Minister comment on the potential costs of that overspend and the potential knock-on effects on other projects? Is he happy with Translink’s management of the project?


Taking the last point first, the original project managers have been replaced. I was not pleased that that was necessary. I ask the House not to press me too much on the matter, because legal issues arise from it, but that caused some of the delay. Secondly, the track re-laying machine arrived in Northern Ireland late. The machine came from the USA, obviously not by first-class post. Nonetheless, it is now doing the job. Thirdly, the main contractors encountered problems in the signalling work. I expect that there will be an overrun in costs, but we have been unable to ascertain the exact extent of that.

Northern Ireland Railways: New Rolling Stock

7. asked the Minister for Regional Development what progress has been made in acquiring new rolling stock for Northern Ireland Railways.
(AQO712/01)


The process of procuring new rolling stock for Northern Ireland Railways is nearing completion. That has been managed to date by a rolling stock steering group comprised of senior officials from Translink, the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and my Department.
The steering group has been advised by professional consultants with expertise in train procurement. An independent panel of experts with industry-specific expertise has quality assured the procurement process. The rolling stock steering group has completed the process of evaluating the tenders and will shortly make a recommendation to the board of the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company, which is responsible for awarding the contract.
The delivery dates for the new trains are still being discussed, but each of the 23 new train sets should be ready for scheduled passengers approximately six months after delivery, following a commissioning period by Northern Ireland Railways.


The Minister is aware of the serious infrastructure problems in the whole of the Northern Ireland railway system. Can he assure us that as new trains arrive in Northern Ireland, the infrastructure and the system will also be improved?


The responsibility for the operation falls to Translink. Members of the Committee for Regional Development will know that we are examining the structural issues involved in that.
I was disappointed to learn that the tender negotiations showed that the date of the expected delivery appeared to be unrealistic. The Department has asked Translink and the Committee to determine what the new delivery date might be. Members will be disappointed by a delay, but the industry claims that the dates were unrealistic.


Northern Ireland Railways (NIR) seems to be concentrating on heavy rail. Is the Minister aware of any approaches or costing that NIR may have made for rolling stock for light rail?


When I first took office, I faced a general view from the Northern Ireland Office that all railways in Northern Ireland would close. The Department has attempted to stop that by consolidating the core and building it up. I am not sure that there would be a ready funding response from the Department of Finance and Personnel for a light rail system. I have no doubt that, theoretically at least, Translink is looking at those matters. However, our immediate task is to build up the attractiveness of the core network that A D Little identified, encourage passengers on to those trains and, at that stage, attempt to enhance the overall network.

The environment

Question 16, in the name of Mr Barry McElduff, has been transferred to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and will receive a written answer.

River Corridors

1. asked the Minister of the Environment if he has any plans to legislate for and to promote protected river corridors to ensure fishery interests are included in the planning process.
(AQO756/01)


Legislation is not required for that purpose. Existing planning policy provides for the protection of river corridors and fishery interests where appropriate. Relevant planning policies can be found in the recently published regional development strategy for Northern Ireland, the planning strategy for rural Northern Ireland and in planning policy statement 2: planning and nature conservation.
The Department may also, through the development plan process, seek to control development along river corridors. During the preparation of a development plan, consultation with other Departments and agencies, district councils, local interests groups and the public often highlights specific areas where such policy protection is justified and should be considered. Each river corridor must be treated on its merits, and the Department could not sustain a blanket policy restricting all development in such areas.
If a specific planning application raised fishery interests, the Department would normally consult with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Depending on the nature and location of the development, consultation replies may also be requested from the Fisheries Conservancy Board, Foyle Fisheries in the Foyle catchment area, the water quality unit of the Environment and Heritage Service, the Rivers Agency, angling clubs in the locality and the leisure and inland waterways division of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Advice received would be taken into account before a final decision is taken on such applications.
In addition, my Colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, advises me that, in the planning and execution of its drainage programme, that Department has a statutory duty to protect fishery interests.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. I raised the question in response to appeals — that seem to have fallen on deaf ears — from the Faughan Anglers’ Association to the many agencies that the Minister mentioned. If the Minister visited the area, he would see that, due to the dumping of waste and sand extraction, the area around the Faughan River is similar to a lunar landscape. Does the Minister consider the planning policies that he outlined sufficient to protect the environment and the river corridors?


I thank the Member for her question. All the aspects that she referred to are considered in any planning application. The Department considers all objective decisions and views of consultees, and it is aware of the need to protect the environment. However, if there are other more specific issues that the Member would like to refer to me, I would appreciate it if she were to write to me.


Did the Department of the Environment contribute to the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee’s inquiry into inland fisheries in Northern Ireland? Will the Minister undertake to consult with his ministerial Colleague to ensure that the tertiary treatment will operate in the new sewerage facility at Larne, thus protecting the interests of the local shellfishermen in Larne Lough and ensuring that high levels of water quality are achieved?


As I said in my previous answer, we do, and will, take into consideration all the issues that affect people in the areas concerned — including the Larne area. During its inquiry into inland fisheries in Northern Ireland, the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure made several recommendations that relate to the Department of the Environment. The Department responded fully to those. Officials have been invited to, and have agreed to attend, a meeting of the Committee to discuss the recommendations further.

Planning Applications: Backlog

2. asked the Minister of the Environment what progress has been made on reducing the backlog of planning applications.
(AQO737/01)


During 2000-01, the backlog was reduced by 17%, despite a rise in application numbers of 4·5%. Regrettably, by the end of December 2001, the initial reduction in the backlog had fallen to under 5%. There were several obstacles to progress during 2001. The impact of foot-and-mouth disease delayed the consideration of a substantial number of applications, and local government elections affected consultation arrangements with councils. Planning application numbers increased by a further 6%, representing more than 1,000 applications. If that level of increase were to be sustained, it would represent a 19% increase during the period 1999-2000 to 2001-02. The Planning Service is still recruiting and training new staff to deal with the increased workload. The number of planning decisions issued by the end of December 2001 is up by 3% on last year, despite the obstacles encountered earlier in the year. That increase represents 438 applications.


I accept the validity of the reasons that the Minister outlined for the backlog not being cleared as quickly as it might have been. However, how many applications are outstanding after a period of six months, and how many are outstanding after a period of one year? Has the Minister set a new date for clearing the backlog of planning applications?


The difficulties experienced in 2001 are, of course, disappointing. I will therefore be monitoring closely the progress that can be made by the end of the year. Much also depends on the increase in planning application numbers. I assure the Member that the Department of the Environment will continue to do its best to reduce the backlog. At the end of December 2001, there were 656 planning applications in the system for the Lisburn district. Of those, 397 are regarded as backlog cases. However, that must be viewed against a 12% rise in application numbers in the Lisburn district. That increase represents 105 applications.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Could the backlog be made worse by the problems that some people face with planning applications for small businesses in rural areas under the Peace II and rural development programme funding?


It is difficult to predict such issues. We take each application as it comes. We cannot be sure where applications will come from. However, I assure the Member that the process is under pressure. The economy is going so well in Northern Ireland that extra pressure is being put on us all. Sometimes we wonder if we are able to cope with all the applications. The Member raises an important issue that it is good to address. However, we cannot predict what planning applications will be made. We deal with them as they come, and each application is taken on its own merit.

Sewage Treatment Works (Dundrum)

3. asked the Minister of the Environment to give his assessment of the environmental impact of the sewage works at Dundrum on the condition of the Newcastle beach; and to make a statement.
(AQO741/01)


During the 2001 season, the bathing water at Newcastle failed to comply with the mandatory coliform bacteria standards of the EC Bathing Water Directive. The Environment and Heritage Service monitors bathing waters at 27 locations around the coast of Northern Ireland. The monitoring results for the 2001 bathing season showed that the bathing water at Murlough Bay, which is the closest monitoring site to inner Dundrum Bay, complied with the guideline coliform standards of the Directive. That clearly shows that the Dundrum waste water treatment works is not having an adverse environmental impact on Murlough Bay.
Given that Newcastle is over seven kilometres away, it seems unlikely that the works have any such impact on the bathing water at Newcastle. My officials consider that the failure of the bathing water at Newcastle to meet Directive standards is due to excessive discharges from the sewer overflows. Agriculture run-off and the frequent effluent from the Newcastle waste water treatment works may also be contributory factors.


As the Minister is aware, Newcastle was not awarded blue flag status. Given the Minister’s assessment, the damage done to the coast and the fact that Newcastle is one of the top three tourist destinations, can the Minister assure us that he will assist Down District Council in its bid for blue flag status in the future? Furthermore, will he take into consideration the bad weather over the weekend and the damage caused to the seafront and the coast in the Newcastle, Killough, and Ardglass areas? Will he put in place the necessary infrastructure to repair this damage, and will he also support those whose homes were damaged by flooding over the weekend? Go raibh maith agat.


Some of the issues that the hon Member raised are not within my remit, so I cannot give him assurances on those matters. However, where responsibility lies with the Department of the Environment, we will take action accordingly. The waste water treatment works at Newcastle already has secondary treatment, and the effluent complied with the Urban Waste Water Directive’s registered discharge standard in 2001.
However, there are major concerns about storm overflow discharges from both the works and the sewerage system. My Department has called for improvements to those systems to protect the bathing water in the future. The improvements to the Newcastle sewerage system will involve the Water Service carrying out an assessment of the performance of the system using a hydraulic sewer model. That model will be assessed against the current agreed guidelines for overflow discharges and improvements agreed to provide the required level of environmental protection.


My question relates to the ongoing problem of waterway pollution and waste water treatment works. Will the Minister undertake to prepare a report on the number of pollution incidents on our waterways, and the number and nature of related fish kills in Northern Ireland during 2001?


In 2001 there were 47 fish kills, in comparison with annual figures of around 40 in recent years. While I deplore all pollution incidents, especially those causing significant fish kills, it is encouraging that there has been a reduction of 27% in the number of medium- and high-severity pollution incidents, including fish kills, between 1996 and 2001.
An Environment and Heritage Service report on pollution incidents and prosecution statistics for 2001 is being prepared for publication in April. This report will be put on the Environment and Heritage Service web site.


I again remind Members to ensure that their supplementary questions are relevant to the oral questions.


I hope that my question will be relevant. Does the Minister agree that the condition of the Newcastle beach has more to do with the Newcastle sewerage works than the Dundrum sewerage works and that its condition would be greatly improved if the Minister for Regional Development brought forward the promised improvements to the Newcastle sewerage works? Can the Minister use his good offices to try to facilitate that?


I cannot answer on behalf of the Minister for Regional Development. The level of sewage discharges in that area needs to be examined. The results of that monitoring will be assessed according to the current guidelines for overflow discharges and improvements. The intention of the current guidelines is to seek improvement, and the Department of the Environment will do so within its remit.
The litter on Newcastle beach and its overall condition are, in the first instance, matters for Newry and Mourne District Council.

Water Framework Directive

4. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive.
(AQO720/01)


The European Water Framework Directive came into force on 22 December 2000. It establishes a new, comprehensive system for the protection and improvement of Europe’s water environment on the basis of river basin management plans. The aim of the Directive is to achieve a good status for all surface and ground waters throughout the European Union by 2015. It requires the development of a strategic managerial approach based on river basin districts. The provisions of the Directive are to be transposed into the national legislation of member states by the end of 2003. Further steps include an analysis of river basin characteristics, a review of the impact of human activity on surface and ground water, and an economic analysis of water used — all are to be completed by the end of 2004.
Responsibility for the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive in Northern Ireland lies with my Department and its agency, the Environment and Heritage Service. My Department has established a steering group, comprising representatives of the Northern Ireland Departments and agencies that are affected by the Directive, to assist in the process. My Department will publish this spring a first consultation paper on the implementation of the Directive in Northern Ireland. The paper will outline the Directive’s provisions, and will invite views on its key issues as they affect Northern Ireland. I look forward to receiving comments on how to implement the Directive in a way that best suits Northern Ireland’s needs and circumstances.


I thank the Minister for his complete response. We are all aware of the staffing and resources problems that the Department of the Environment has suffered for several years, and which the Minister has tried to redress over the last couple of years. Can he assure us that he will have the necessary staff and financial resources to implement the necessary legislative change by next year and the necessary administrative changes by the year after, which would ensure that the targets are met and we do not lag behind?


I assure Members of that, in so far as it is possible to do so. I have been successful in the last two Budgets in securing additional resources for the transposition and implementation of EU Directives relating to the environment. When the recruitment process is completed, my Department’s environmental policy division will have increased from 34 to 64 staff, while the water quality unit and the Environment and Heritage Service will have grown from 37 to 74 staff. Those staffing increases need to be regarded in the context of the backlog of key Directives to be implemented and transposed, which I inherited from the time of direct rule. Together with the new Directives that have been introduced since devolution, including the Water Framework Directive, and imminent legislation, they create a daunting task for my officials.
In order to meet all the European requirements, I expect to bring some 40 to 50 pieces of environmental legislation before the Assembly over the next few years.


In my experience of the Foyle system — and the Minister will know this, given his experience of the Erne system — river systems do not necessarily recognise political boundaries. What plans is he making to implement the cross-border aspects of the Water Framework Directive?


If a river basin district covers the territory of more than one European member state, the Water Framework Directive requires that that area be identified as an international river basin district. Member states are required to co-operate on the management of water quality in those shared districts through appropriate administrative arrangements.
As I said in my statement to the Assembly on 14 January, a joint working group on water quality has also been set up by the environment sector of the North/South Ministerial Council. Among other things, that will provide for the co-operative arrangements required by the Directive in respect of international river basin districts. The catchments of the Erne, Foyle, and Lough Neagh are shared with the South. As such, they must be included in international river basin districts under the terms of the Directive.


What fines is the Department of the Environment paying at present because EU Directives have not been implemented, and what fines are pending?


The Department prosecutes pollution offenders where the evidence permits. We seek the full recovery of our costs, including those of investigation and cleaning up waterways after pollution incidents. We liaise closely with the fishery authorities to ensure that those who cause fish kills also pay for restocking.
The fines levied by the courts are outside our control. The maximum fine for pollution offences is £20,000. The Department has conveyed the seriousness of water pollution offences to the Northern Ireland Court Service so that it can brief magistrates.

Driving Test Statistics

5. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail driving test pass/fail ratio statistics for the past 12-month period; and to make a statement.
(AQO747/01)


In the 12 months up to 31 December 2001, driving test pass rates were 52% for the normal "L" test for car drivers, 70% for motorcycles, 71% for buses and 54% for lorries.
The driving test in Northern Ireland is demanding. In 1999 it was updated to include more time on the road, driving on dual carriageways and other higher speed roads as well as a new approach to manoeuvres. New test marking procedures and other measures to enhance the quality and consistency of the test have also been introduced. Since 1999 rates have gradually reduced to present levels.
About 40,000 driving tests are conducted each year by my Department’s Driver & Vehicle Testing Agency (DVTA). The quality of testing is monitored carefully and regularly in order to maintain consistency and high standards. During the past 10 years, two reviews of testing standards have been carried out in Northern Ireland by the Driving Standards Agency, and as a result of a recommendation by the Public Accounts Committee in November 2000 the DVTA agreed that such independent reviews should continue at five-year intervals. The next review is due in 2004.


In the light of those figures, can the Minister assure the House that driving examiners, while ensuring that we have high-quality drivers, will not be allowed to fail candidates unnecessarily? Does the Minister agree that test examiners should be brought under greater scrutiny in order to ensure consistency and equality?


In Great Britain, pass rates between the test centres vary from 17% to 72%, a spread of 55 percentage points. In Northern Ireland, the variation is from 40% to 65%, a spread of just 25 percentage points. Various factors produce minor differences on pass rates between centres, including road and traffic conditions and standards of instruction. However, procedures are in place to monitor and supervise driving examiners to ensure that testing standards are consistent and appropriate. Driving examiners are thoroughly trained alongside Great Britain examiners, and their training is updated from time to time. Supervising examiners also regularly sit in on the tests to ensure that standards are maintained, and independent reviews of testing standards are conducted every five years. Every four years, the agency checks driving instructors to ensure that their techniques and abilities to give instructions meet the required standard.

Causeway Management Plan

6. asked the Minister of the Environment to outline the terms and conditions of the Causeway management plan.
(AQO714/01)


The Member should by now have received my reply to his letter, which was addressed to the permanent secretary. Included with that letter was an annex, which sets out in detail the aims of the management plan for that area of outstanding natural beauty. The aim is to establish a framework for the management of this landscape, particularly to conserve and improve the Giant’s Causeway World Heritage Site. The plan is being prepared by consultants, overseen by my Department’s Environment and Heritage Service. We have set up an advisory group of experts, assisted by a working group of local interests. The management plan is a non-statutory plan designed to deal with the whole range of visitor management and related issues that have an impact on this area. It is planned to publish an issues paper for consultation in March. That will be followed by a draft plan to be published in June, again for public consultation. A final plan is to be provided to the Department in November, and I expect to publish the agreed management plan in January 2003.
The management plan will also inform the statutory Northern area plan, which is being prepared by my Department’s Planning Service. This latter plan will also be the subject of full public consultation as well as a public inquiry. I have taken the decision to give high priority to preparing the management plan in acknowledgement of the special qualities of the Causeway area and the pressures affecting it. My Department has prepared an information leaflet to provide further background on the plan to the public, and copies have been made available to Members.


I thank the Minister for his reply and his letter, which I received at the end of last week. Does the Minister agree that the Causeway area and the Glens of Antrim are among the most special and delightful parts of Northern Ireland? Will he confirm that the management plan will simply be advisory for this area and that a balanced voice will be given to private sector experts while the plan is being prepared? Will he also confirm that his Department will not agree to the National Trust’s call to vest the land that Moyle District Council is selling? Does he agree that nothing should be done that would give unfair advantage, promote their interests or frustrate the interests of others by those involved in the plan or the actions of the Department?


I assure the Member generally that whatever takes place in the Causeway coast area will happen in an objective and impartial manner. There will be no advantage for any one person or group. The management plan referred to by Mr Paisley will be a non-statutory plan dealing with many issues outside the remit of the Planning Service but informing the area plan being prepared by that service. The plan will look at the issues surrounding the quality of the landscape of this area of outstanding natural beauty, the protection of the World Heritage Site and how some of those matters can be best translated into policy and action. The management plan will inform the preparation of the statutory area plan, and it will be for the Planning Service to address matters relating to building development through that statutory process.


Is the Minister aware of the considerable local concern about the pace and nature of development in the Causeway area of outstanding natural beauty and of the need for much stricter planning guidelines to protect this priceless scenic asset?


As is everyone in Northern Ireland at this time, I am very much aware of the great concern that exists about the Causeway coast area in and around the Giant’s Causeway, which is a World Heritage Site. I assure the House that, within my Department’s remit, we will ensure that it will be zealously guarded and that anything that takes place there will be in keeping with the World Heritage Sites’ values.

Ards and Down Area Plan

7. asked the Minister of the Environment when the draft Ards and Down area plan will be published; and to make a statement.
(AQO711/01)


Publication of the draft Ards and Down area plan is programmed in the Planning Service’s current corporate and business plan for March 2002. However, it is now expected that the publication date will be May 2002. Notice of intention to prepare the Ards and Down area plan 2015 was published in March 1999. Initial research was carried out at the Planning Service’s headquarters, and the divisional plan team was established in May 2000. Following publication of an issues paper in December 2000, several well-attended public meetings were held in January 2001. Following these meetings and other consultations, over 800 representations were received. Those will help inform the content of the draft plan to be published.


I thank the Minister for a reply in which he has announced yet another delay in the publication of the Down and Ards plan. My interest is in Down particularly.
Does the Minister agree that the current planning and decision-making process in County Down is based on the late 1980s and is woefully out of date, and that current development is being stymied by the fact that there has not been a review of planning restrictions and regulations in that area for 15 years? Development is taking place and development has also been restricted. The work of the Minister’s Department, and that of many other offices involved in infrastructure development, is being hampered. Can he give a final guarantee that the new date of May 2002 is final, and that the plan will be published then?


I know that Mr McGrady and other Members from that area are concerned. As far as it is possible to be absolute about anything, I can give an assurance that the plan will be published on the date stated. The old plan will remain of material consideration for any future planning until the new plan has become fruitful.


What steps have the Minister and his Department taken to encourage developers and builders to contribute to the local community through the area plan by providing roads, schools and so forth? Can the Minister confirm that the days when developers produced wall-to-wall houses have gone for good and that any applications they make must show a direct and positive contribution to the future life of the area? Will he also confirm that a balance between the equality initiative and social infrastructure is required?


Unfortunately, our time is up. I am sure that the Minister will give the Member a written answer.

First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Mr Speaker: I wish to inform the House that question 8, in the name of Mr McMenamin, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

Single Equality Bill

Mrs Eileen Bell: 1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the introduction of the single equality Bill.
(AQO717/01)

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 10. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on its plans for the single equality Bill.
(AQO738/01)

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Before answering questions, I want to formally advise the Assembly about the absence of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister from Question Time today. The Assembly will no doubt be aware that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are in the United States of America at present. They addressed the World Economic Forum yesterday, and on Wednesday they will be opening the office for the Executive and the Assembly in Washington. Therefore, Mr Haughey and I are acting on behalf of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister today.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will group questions 1 and 10 together. We are committed to the introduction of a single equality Bill, which will harmonise anti-discrimination law, as far as practicable, and will extend into new categories, including age and sexual orientation. It will enable us to consider important developments in Britain and the Republic, and in European Union Directives.
At their meeting on 18 January, the Executive considered how the work involved in bringing forward proposals for a single equality Bill could best be taken forward. This is a highly complex area of law, and it is essential that we get it right. We must properly implement the recent European Directives dealing with discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, belief, sexual orientation, age or disability. When we drew up our original timetable, the Framework Directive had not been agreed. We now know what that Directive is, and it raises complex issues, particularly in relation to age, which must be resolved. We must also take into account new Directives on gender discrimination currently being developed.
In addition, we will be taking advice on those and other issues that have been raised. We have taken into account the consultation process, which requested from us further detailed consultation on our proposals and on specific issues. We are determined that this legislation will implement all our obligations and that it will be effective. A policy paper, setting out proposals for the Bill, will be published for consultation by the end of this year. In the meantime, we will meet our current EU commitments by introducing affirmative resolution regulations in the Assembly early next year. Also, early next year, we will consult separately on age discrimination and, following agreement, on the new Directive on sex discrimination. All this will ensure that the single equality Bill is taken forward in a way that takes account of emerging issues and, it is to be hoped, that provides good, workable law.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Minister for his answer. Notwithstanding his comments about the complexity of the issue, does the Minister agree that this Bill is very welcome as it will strengthen equality law in this country, and that any delay can only be detrimental?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: The aim is to have a simple law and to have equality. We wish for the best equality possible and equality of opportunity. That is what we are committed to. I recognise the concern about slowdown, but I repeat again that we are committed fully to the single equality Bill. We are having consultation about it, and more time is needed to consider specific areas. The people who are raising concerns about this matter should remember that the development of similar legislation in the Republic of Ireland took eight years.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Can the Minister give an assurance that the single equality Bill will not lead to a reduction in protection? Can he give the reasons for the revision of the timetable in the first place?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I do not wish to repeat what I said only a moment ago about why we are taking time and why there is a revision because of EU Directives, but the Member appears to be concerned about other aspects of our performance. Let me give some examples. Great Britain has merely published a consultation document, in December 2001, on the implementation of EC Directives. In relation to age there are only general comments, although Great Britain intends to consult more fully on age discrimination this year. However, so far, many of the issues are unresolved.
I turn to the neighbouring jurisdiction on this island, the Republic of Ireland. Recently it has concentrated on a review of the grounds of discrimination covered in the current Acts, but there has been no public consultation so far about ways to implement the EC Directives. Therefore, in comparison with Britain and the Republic of Ireland, and given the difficulties that I have explained, what the Executive and the Assembly are doing with respect to equality of opportunity and the equality Bill is the best way forward for everybody in Northern Ireland.

Mr Denis Watson: Will the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister address civil rights for members of the Loyal Orders — who are prevented from walking on certain roads — in the single equality Bill, as a matter of discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief, in keeping with the recent European Directives? Will the Assembly be given time to debate the Directive that deals with religion and belief?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is aware of inter-community tensions in Northern Ireland, which manifest themselves geographically in the areas that have been mentioned and, typically, through a process of parading. We want to see one community in Northern Ireland, where all diversities are celebrated in peace, harmony and understanding of each other. We support the local dialogue that is taking place in those key areas to resolve the disputes and division in our society. The issue of parading, in Drumcree or on the Garvaghy Road, for example, is a matter for the Northern Ireland Office and the Parades Commission.
As regards discussing and debating, the Assembly will, of course, debate those aspects of the equality Bill as well as aspects of employment discrimination, goods, facilities and services through the normal legislative process. There will be ample time for debate on those issues during that process.

Mr Ivan Davis: What priority will be given to disability rights, and what role will be adopted to support and encourage disabled people in 2003, the European year of people with disabilities?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: The Executive will make their response to the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force, and that will be reflected in the single equality Bill — for example, we hope to extend the definition to include HIV and cancer, and we will ensure that that work is taken forward. We generally have a responsibility for the Disability Rights Task Force, and we are examining the recommendations that were issued for consultation last year. This year we are committed to improving civil rights for disabled people. In order to promote social inclusion, we will develop a strategy to implement the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force.
We are discussing the arrangements for 2003 — the European year of people with disabilities — with colleagues in Britain, and we will consider how best to take that forward in Northern Ireland when more information is available.

Executive Meeting: Date and Agenda

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline (a) the date of the next Executive meeting; and (b) the issues on the agenda.
(AQO715/01)

Mr Denis Haughey: It is regrettable that a question such as this must come forward from a party involved in the Administration. It derives from the peculiar attitude that that party takes to attendance at Executive meetings. The next meeting of the Executive is scheduled to take place on Thursday 14 February. It is not the policy of the Administration to disclose in advance what issues will be raised at this or any other Executive meeting.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Can the junior Minister confirm whether the Executive have discussed or intend to discuss the contents of the Chief Constable’s response to the Police Ombudsman’s report into Omagh? Can he shed some light on the Deputy First Minister’s weekend comments that he wants an outside investigator put in overall charge of this inquiry? Is that an Executive view? Is that the view of the Deputy First Minister, as opposed to the First Minister, or is that a party view? Does the junior Minister agree that the divisive comments by the Deputy First Minister at the weekend will not only further divide the board but are regarded as "Durkan’s destruction plan" to defy consensus on that board?

Mr Denis Haughey: I can neither confirm nor deny that the Executive have discussed these matters. I do not attend Executive meetings, and I can make no comment on Mr Paisley Jnr’s other contentious remarks.

Mr Billy Bell: Following the judgement of Mr Justice Coghlin, can the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister confirm that it remains in order to withhold Executive papers uncovering and revealing what is going on in the Executive Committee from DUP Ministers?

Mr Denis Haughey: I can confirm that the judgement of Mr Justice Coghlin makes it clear that the withholding of Executive papers from DUP Ministers is a reasonable response to the announced DUP policy of taking up ministerial office to enable it to uncover and reveal what is going on at the heart of Government. The declaration by the court in this instance related only to the withholding of a specific paper. The paper in question was issued to the DUP Ministers on Monday, 12 February 2001.

Mr Alex Maskey: Further to the original question, given the obvious interest from several Members of the DUP in the Executive’s agenda, can the junior Minister advise the House if at any time, as other Executive Ministers do, the DUP Ministers or their advisers ever communicate their position or view on any matter in respect of the Executive’s agenda, for example, in writing or by any other method of communication?

Mr Denis Haughey: I am not aware of any such communications.

Grant Award Fraud

Mr Billy Armstrong: 3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what action has been taken to eradicate fraud undertaken by unrepresentative "cross-community groups" claiming grant awards.
(AQO752/01)

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: The vast majority of community relations funding is awarded to cross-community groups and projects. Single identity groups may be funded where the aim is to promote cross-community interaction and mutual respect. Grants are awarded where projects meet the eligibility criteria. The assessment process includes a range of checks: confirmation that the group is formally constituted; provision of a list of names of its board or management committee; and an examination of its financial position. All projects receiving funding are subject to regular monitoring to check on progress and to ensure that the agreed aims and objectives are being met.
In addition, it is a standard condition of grant that any documents, information or papers relating to a project must be provided on request and that any request to inspect or carry out audits is facilitated. Information provided on the application forms for grants and interim funding claims may also be made available to other Departments and agencies for the purposes of preventing and detecting crime. Applicants are made aware of that before accepting any offer of grant.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Does the Minister agree that a problem could arise because a number of community groups that are not cross-community structured could benefit from cross-community funding? Within the overall remit of the community relations based funding, is the Minister currently investigating proceedings arising from the detection of fraudulent applications? Is any action being pursued to return funding sent out in error?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: While it would be very serious if any group obtained funds on the basis of a deliberate misrepresentation, the availability of community relations funding is not confined to cross-community groups. In certain circumstances, funding may be provided to single-identity groups. Because of particular tensions and issues, those groups are working in a community where it may be necessary to prepare the ground for subsequent meaningful dialogue and interaction between the communities. Therefore the guiding principle is that the applicants, whether they are cross-community or single identity, must be able to demonstrate how their project can and will contribute to improving community relations. The key aim is to improve community relations and does not preclude the funding of a single group. However, the guiding principle must be clear.
There are currently no investigations proceeding on recovery of fraudulent applications.

Mr John Dallat: Does the Minister agree that the vast majority of community groups have, on a purely voluntary basis, played a vital role in the process of cross- community bridge building? Can he assure the House that he will continue to encourage the work of such groups, despite the disgraceful actions of the very few who commit fraud?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Yes, I happily endorse what the Member has said. Work has been done, and I have no doubt it will continue to be done, at a community level in Northern Ireland. Too often those groups — and individuals — are not recognised for their work, and we commend that work. We recognise that as we in the Assembly are trying to work better together, those in the community will also work better together. We must recognise the need to do this, and I pay tribute to the work being done by community groups.

Visit to South Antrim

Mr David Ford: 4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have any plans to visit South Antrim.
(AQO719/01)

Mr Denis Haughey: There are currently no plans for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a joint visit to South Antrim in the near future.

Mr David Ford: It is interesting to see that the Ministers can be brief on some responses.
Since there are no plans to visit South Antrim, can the Minister explain why the legislative programme seems to have disappeared from sight, and why so few targets in this year’s Programme for Government have been met? Ten months into the year, only about a quarter of the targets have been achieved. Can he explain to the Assembly and to my constituents in South Antrim how he proposes to improve matters in the future?

Mr Denis Haughey: Do you propose to allow that question, Mr Speaker?

Mr Speaker: There seems to be time to answer it, if there is a wish.

Mr Denis Haughey: There is plenty of time to answer it, Mr Speaker. I raise a question over the very tenuous connection between that supplementary question and the original question. However, that is a matter within your province.

Mr Speaker: I assume that the question from the Member is that if the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister do not have time to visit South Antrim, it is because there are preparations in the other areas which the Member has raised.

Mr Denis Haughey: I am well aware that that was what he was saying.
It is my view, and that of the Members of the Administration, that the criticism which has arisen in the last couple of weeks about the volume of legislation in the Assembly is very unfair and does not give credit to the Executive and the Assembly for the huge volume of work that has been undertaken.
A look at the Programme for Government, the Budgets, the work of the Committees and all of the other tasks that have been undertaken will show that the volume of work that has been put through the Assembly is very creditable indeed.
Since devolution, 23 Bills have been enacted, touching on very important aspects of everyday life in Northern Ireland. We have had complex pieces of legislation dealing with ground rents, child support and pensions. That record compares very well with the Scottish Parliament, which, in the equivalent period, has passed 29 pieces of legislation, and which has had much less uncertainty and many fewer alarms and excursions to deal with than the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have had here.
On 27 September 2001, Sir Reg Empey and Séamus Mallon wrote to Members to inform them of the legislative programme for the 2001-02 session. To date, one Bill has received Royal Assent and two are awaiting it. A further two Bills have completed, or are about to complete, Committee Stage. It had been hoped that more Bills would have been introduced into the Assembly by this stage of the session. Ministers are examining what can be done to expedite matters. However, a great deal of pre-introduction work has already been carried out, particularly in Committees, on the development of legislation for the programme. As a result of that, we anticipate that five new Bills will be introduced before the end of the month.
There are other points that need to be made in this regard. First of all, when comparing this Assembly with the Scottish Parliament or the Executive with the Scottish Executive, it should be noted that, in our case, the inter-party Government is based on statute. In Scotland, it is based on a voluntary coalition of the participating parties. A voluntary coalition involves the preparation of an agreed programme for government beforehand. In our circumstances, the preparation of a Programme for Government had to be agreed after the appointment of the Executive.
Under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, consultation is required of the Executive in relation to all matters that come before the House by way of proposals for legislation. Consultation has been much more extensive here than is normally the case, where a good deal of the debate and discussion of Bills takes place in the House. We have had a great deal of that through our consultation process, and through Committee work, before Bills have come to the House.
In the current session, a Bill dealing with social security fraud has been enacted. Two Bills dealing with industrial development and the restructuring of IDB and LEDU, and a Bill on game preservation, have all passed their Final Stage. Two more are completing their Committee Stages. I submit to the House that the record of this Assembly and the Executive in terms of business undertaken is very creditable indeed.

Mr Speaker: I do not think that the Member or the House can complain that the Minister avoided the question.

Mr Jim Wilson: My question is a little more focused on the constituency of South Antrim. Will the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister consider holding a future meeting of the British-Irish Council in what is undoubtedly the most attractive of all constituencies in the United Kingdom, thus opening to a wider audience a perspective of South Antrim likely to assist in attracting new commercial investment and more tourist visitors?

Mr Denis Haughey: I will make the views of the hon Member known to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and, through them, to the Executive. However, I cannot make any commitment on behalf of the Executive at this time.

Larne: Inter-community Relations

Mr Roy Beggs: 5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to give its assessment of work associated with improving inter-community relations in the borough of Larne since the involvement of the Central Community Relations Unit and the Northern Ireland Mediation Network in the area.
(AQO757/01)

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: What I previously said to Mr Dallat, I say also in the context of the Larne area. We would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation, and that of the Executive, for the effort and commitment of all those engaged in this initiative, and to assure them of our support in their endeavours on behalf of the entire community of Larne.
The Member will be aware that with the support of the Central Community Relations Unit, Larne District Partnership Board convened exploratory meetings with Larne Borough Council officials, the Community Relations Council and the Mediation Network to consider what could be done to improve community relations in the borough. As a result, proposals emerged for an initial consultative process to be taken forward by the Mediation Network. From this process, steps have been taken to establish a forum for social development with the aim of improving understanding in the community of Larne.
There have been three meetings of the forum with differing representations at each meeting. The meetings are co-ordinated, chaired and facilitated by the Mediation Network. During the initial meetings, the forum discussed the work that would need to be carried out; it also considered widening its membership. Consideration should also be given to having as balanced a group as possible representing gender, religion, age, rural and urban representation. Although time-consuming, the initiative and process to date have produced positive engagement with individuals representing key constituencies in the Larne area. It has obtained the strong support of Larne Borough Council.
The Mediation Network is engaged in discussions with a view to the forum’s meeting again in early April 2002. It is hoped to elicit support from local public representatives to establish an even stronger core group of citizens around whom a longer-term forum can be established and, more importantly, sustained. At this point, it would be premature to produce a detailed assessment of the initiative. However, as with many things in this context — this applies to Mr Watson’s and to Mr Dallat’s questions among others — ultimately the key to improving relations in communities in any borough, urban or rural, lies in the hands of the people whom we are trying to facilitate. In this case they are the people and the elected representatives of Larne.

Mr Roy Beggs: Does the Minister acknowledge that improving local community infrastructure in areas where it is weak often plays an important role in improving community relations? Is his Department aware of the importance of sustaining such projects as Community Empowerment Larne?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: We recognise the importance of empowerment — it is a phrase that is now in vogue — and capacity building to local people. The local community plays an important role in improving community relations. We accept that there is a weak community infrastructure in the Member’s area. We hope that our work will lay a foundation upon which Larne — and other areas where there has been division and weakness in coming together — can build in order to facilitate their growing together as one community in future.

PFI/PPP: Alternative Funding Opportunities

Mr Barry McElduff: 6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister whether the Economic Policy Unit is exploring, in partnership with the Department of Finance and Personnel, alternative funding opportunities to PFI/PPP; and to make a statement.
(AQO726/01)

Mr Denis Haughey: A high-level working group, which is jointly chaired by the Economic Policy Unit in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Department of Finance and Personnel, was established in September 2001. It was established to fulfil our Programme for Government commitment to review opportunities for the use of private finance in all major service provision and infrastructure projects, to increase investment and to provide innovative and value for money solutions through public-private partnerships and private finance initiatives.
The working group includes representatives from the public, private and voluntary sectors and from trade unions. As part of the working group’s deliberations, consideration is being given to alternative and complementary funding opportunities to public-private partnerships (PPP) that may redress the investment deficit in the infrastructure of our public services. Those include bond finance, user charging, asset sales and not-for-profit structures.
However, it must be recognised that the present public expenditure control regime, under which all the devolved Administrations operate, places certain constraints on the way in which funds for investment can be raised. For example, direct borrowing by publicly funded bodies cannot lead to any increased expenditure within the confines of the Northern Ireland departmental expenditure limit. The working group has planned to complete its review and submit a report to Ministers by the end of March.

Mr Barry McElduff: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. My question, following on from that, relates to alternative funding sources. The Minister and his office will be aware that at the time of the Good Friday negotiations —

Mr Speaker: Unfortunately, I regret that by putting his substantive parenthesis at the start, the Member has lost the time in which to make his supplementary question, because the 30 minutes are up.
3.00pm
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Regional Development

Mr Donovan McClelland: I wish to inform Members that question 16, in the name of Mrs Annie Courtney, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

Transport Volume (Mid-Ulster Area)

Mr Billy Armstrong: 1. asked the Minister for Regional Development what assessment he has made in relation to public transport volume in the mid-Ulster area.
(AQO746/01)

Mr Peter Robinson: The three Ulsterbus depots that provide most of the bus services in the mid-Ulster area are at Dungannon, Magherafelt and Omagh. During 2000-01, buses from these three depots provided almost five million passenger journeys. However, this volume shows a decline in the number of passenger journeys from the previous year. This is most disappointing, but similar to the long-term pattern of declining bus usage throughout Northern Ireland.
The rural transport fund operated by my Department currently supports three Ulsterbus routes in the mid- Ulster area. The fund also assists four local community partnerships to provide transport for people with reduced mobility in mid-Ulster. However, as the fund amounts to only £1·6 million this year to support rural transport services throughout Northern Ireland, the level of assistance that it can provide is obviously limited.

Mr Billy Armstrong: In the light of the Minister’s statement, does he not agree that the public transport infrastructure is insufficient in my constituency? In consequence, will the Minister further concede that isolated persons may pay similar amounts of road tax as others do, but for an inferior service, and that that is unacceptable?

Mr Peter Robinson: I accept that the present public transport system throughout Northern Ireland is unsatisfactory. That is why, in the regional transportation strategy that we are currently debating, there is a proposal to increase significantly the amount of public funding that is available. In that sense, mid-Ulster is not unique, although there are special problems with rural areas. However, the regional transportation strategy has identified a scheme for rural areas, and I hope that the hon Gentleman will read it and take it to his community for their comments as well.

Equality Impact Assessment (Antrim/Knockmore Line)

Mr Edwin Poots: 2. asked the Minister for Regional Development what assessment he has made of the number of passengers using the Antrim/Knockmore line following the equality impact assessment carried out in November 2001.
(AQO762/01)

Mr Peter Robinson: Based on figures gathered by Translink from May to November 2001, indications are that the patronage of rail services on the Antrim to Knockmore line is very low at less than 80 passenger journeys per day; that is 40 return journeys. At its reduced level of service Translink currently operates 30 weekday and seven weekend services on this line. I hope to issue the equality impact assessment on the proposed discontinuance of the line next week.

Mr Edwin Poots: Will the Minister say how much it costs, per annum, to run the Antrim to Knockmore line and what efforts he has he made to secure the funding to maintain this line and not have it mothballed?

Mr Peter Robinson: I understand that the track maintenance for the line costs about £215,000 per annum, and the funding required is much more acute. If we have to maintain a service on the Antrim to Knockmore line beyond the life of the existing track bed, which I understand will probably be about three years in present circumstances, we will be talking about £13 million to replace that. We share train services between Antrim/ Knockmore and the Antrim Bleach Green line. Full service on both lines would require another two trains involving a capital requirement of £19 million. In the 2000 spending review the Department for Regional Development sought funding to maintain the Antrim/ Knockmore line; however, it was not granted, and the Assembly voted for a Budget that did not include the continuance of that line.

Water Shortages

Mr Seamus Close: 3. asked the Minister for Regional Development whether he will make a statement on projected water shortages in this calendar year.
(AQO734/01)

Water Supply in the South-East

Mr Mark Robinson: 17. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the water supply situation as a result of the lack of rainfall in the south-east of the Province.
(AQO743/01)

Mr Peter Robinson: With the Speaker’s permission I shall take questions 3 and 17 together.
Impounding reservoirs in the north and west of the Province are almost full, and there are no concerns about the water supply in those areas. The Silent Valley reservoirs are much lower than normal due to the rainfall patterns during 2001, particularly between September and December when rainfall was only 58% of the average. At their lowest, the reservoirs fell to about 33% of their capacity. In February last year they were 97% full. However, the heavy rainfall over the past weeks, which can be identified with my ministerial statement, has improved the position. The reservoirs are now 50% full.

Mr Seamus Close: I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland will appreciate the irony of the Minister’s reply, when, to use a colloquialism, it has been "bucketing heavens hard" today. In recent days, business premises and homes have been flooded due to the incessant rain. Will the Minister agree that the biggest part of the problem is his Department’s lack of an effective leakage strategy? Further, will he confirm that up to 200 million litres of water a day are lost through leakage? Is this not an iniquitous loss of a vital resource? What strategy will the Minister approve to reduce water leakage to a more realistic figure of about 10% to 15%?

Mr Peter Robinson: A day or two of heavy rain seems to give people the impression that the problem has disappeared. There has been significant rainfall over the past weeks, which coincides with my statement that the Department for Regional Development has a secret weapon to increase the volume of water in reservoirs. However, the water shortage is still with us. Last year at this time, the Silent Valley reservoirs were 97% full; at present they are 50% full. We need a sustained period of the Ulster weather that the Member referred to so that there will be no water shortage in the latter part of the summer.
The problem this year arises because of the unusually dry period and is not because of water leakage, which would have been consistent throughout the period. The Department for Regional Development does not automatically use the term "leakage" — we have, rather, "water that is unaccounted for". The distinction is that there are guesstimates as to how much water is used, because, although we know how much water leaves the reservoirs, we do not know exactly how much water our consumers receive because metering is not in place. The hon Gentleman is not, I am sure, advocating metering. An assessment is made about the consumers’ usage, and that may or may not be consistent with the formula being used.
I do not deny that there is leakage. What else can be expected from our dated infrastructure? It is assessed that about 12 million litres of water a day are lost from the Silent Valley. That is equal to about 2·7 million gallons, which would fill many swimming pools, as the hon Gentleman will know. The Water Service maintains a large rural network of over 25,000 km of water mains that are of variable quality and age, some over 100 years old. That network contains about six million joints, all of which have the potential to leak. An estimated one fifth of the assumed leakage occurs through customers’ pipe work.
There is a leakage strategy, and it is a departmental priority. Some £16·3 million has been spent on leakage reduction over the past three years, and a further £25 million will be spent in the next three years.

Mr Mark Robinson: Mr Deputy Speaker, in thanking the Minister for his initial responses, may I ask him to further detail what measures he has put in place to ensure that the situation does not deteriorate in the coming weeks and months?

Mr Peter Robinson: Because the reservoirs are keenly monitored, the Department was able to make an early call in response to the lower levels of water this year and to immediately implement a strategy to reduce the demand on the Silent Valley system. So far, that action has reduced demand from the normal amount of about 143 megalitres a day to the current level of 113 megalitres a day. The Water Service achieved that by putting its drought management plan into action.
Bore holes have been created to provide additional supplies, and more water is being taken from Lough Neagh to the Belfast area. Additional water is also being provided from Lough Island Reavey, which is also in the Mournes, and from the Annalong River. A combination of those measures has already reduced demand on the Silent Valley reservoirs and can further reduce it by 30%.
On the one hand, measures are being taken to reduce the pressure on the Silent Valley supply, and on the other, the Department is alerting the public on how it can help, through its water efficiency plan. Simple measures include the use of the "Hippo bag", an item that I am happy to not demonstrate fully in the Chamber. It is a simple bag which, when filled with water and put in a cistern, reduces by about one third the amount of water used to flush a toilet. Measures to reduce considerably the amount of water that is used include turning off taps while cleaning teeth or washing; the hon Gentleman taking a shower instead of a bath — I am not sure what demand he makes on water supplies — and washing dishes only in fully loaded dishwashers.
The Department is doing its bit, and the consumer can help. More prayers for the good, wet Ulster weather can also see us through. It is to be hoped that we will not need to introduce any measures.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Does the Minister agree that his statement and appeal to the public must have been remarkable, because it has barely stopped raining in the upper Mourne area since he made them? Can he apply those same semi-miraculous powers to solve the problems faced by the sheep farmers who have been denied grazing in that area?

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Member’s question is perhaps not directly related to the main question. Does the Minister care to answer it?

Mr Peter Robinson: Perhaps it is relevant. Maybe the hon Member was suggesting that the sheep had drunk the water from the Silent Valley reservoirs. However, the Department has certain requirements on health standards. Members are aware of how dangerous cryptosporidium can be if it is introduced to a great extent. It is already present in water supplies, but not at a level that causes difficulties. Sheep that are around a reservoir catchment area would not help to keep that level down. That is one of the factors that the Department for Regional Development must take into consideration, and it always takes advice from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development on that.

Traffic Congestion (Sandyknowes Roundabout)

Mr David McClarty: 4. asked the Minister for Regional Development when he proposes to make further decisions regarding the congestion at Sandyknowes roundabout.
(AQO750/01)

Mr Peter Robinson: The Roads Service is actively pursuing the investigation of options to alleviate the congestion experienced there during the morning peak period. It has commissioned a leading UK traffic consultant to undertake a major evaluation of the situation. Particular consideration has been given to two possible short-term options. These essentially involve controlling or limiting the number of vehicles permitted to enter the motorway system, thereby improving traffic flow on the main lines, and controlling the traffic speed on the motorway by introducing regulatory speed limits appropriate to traffic levels, thereby increasing the capacity of the system. These two concepts are used by road authorities in other countries, although their effectiveness depends on the complexity of the network in each case.
It must be recognised, however, that the real problem is that traffic demand at this interchange exceeds the existing road capacity. That is the case on many commuter routes during peak hours. It is likely, therefore, that significant improvements can be achieved only by a major scheme, probably involving an additional traffic lane from Sandyknowes to Greencastle. This aspect is also being considered by the consultant. His final report is due by the end of this month, and I hope to be able to make a statement on the Department’s proposals in the spring.

Mr David McClarty: Can the Minister assure the House that he is committed to providing an efficient road infrastructure for the key northern transport corridor, which includes the M2 and the A26 from Belfast to Coleraine, given the increasing congestion at Sandyknowes and given that more than 15,000 vehicles travel from Coleraine to Glarryford each day on a slow single carriageway?

Mr Peter Robinson: I accept fully the hon Member’s remarks. That is a well-used stretch of carriageway. The M2 motorway at Sandyknowes carries over 60,000 vehicles a day. There is a significant area of development at the roundabout. Therefore, I am not convinced that the measures we are considering at present can do anything more than improve things in an interim capacity. A major scheme is required. The Department has looked at that area and has taken several steps over the past number of years to improve the situation. However, ultimately it will require a major scheme, and that major scheme will require funding.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Anyone who listens to Seamus McKee, Wendy Austin and Conor Bradford presenting ‘Good Morning Ulster’, will know that Sandyknowes is not the only congested area. The traffic news is the same every day. There is also congestion on the Saintfield Road, at Tillysburn and on the Westlink at Broadway. Does the Minister plan to look at those areas as well, considering that he brought forward the transportation strategy and is committed to a 10-year plan?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I remind Members that if a question is asked about a specific area, it is not in order to have a geographical round robin. That has been said before. However, if the Minister does care to answer, he may.

Mr Peter Robinson: Members will be able to go into detail on whatever issues they wish during the debate on the regional transportation strategy. However, those who listen to the traffic reports on ‘Good Morning Ulster’ will know that the Sandyknowes roundabout is frequently in the headlines in that section of the programme.
However, the Member is right to identify problems in several other areas. The Roads Service is always looking at how some busier sections of the road infrastructure can be improved. Undoubtedly, the regional transportation strategy will make many improvements. I recently met delegations from the Saintfield Road about the major problems in that area. Again, we are looking at what proposals can be brought forward to improve life for both motorists and residents in that area.

Mr David Ford: I was a little disappointed that the Minister’s response dwelt on the Roads Service. Given the difficulties in making any major improvements to the M2 and the Sandyknowes junction, is it not time that his Department expedited the building of a park-and-ride station to join the railway to the motorway at Ballymartin, a mile outside Templepatrick, thereby encouraging car drivers from Coleraine to switch to the train and avoid Sandyknowes altogether?

Mr Peter Robinson: Again, that matter is closely associated with the regional strategy. My best chance of convincing motorists that it is better for them to use trains is to improve the railway network and to ensure the availability of good trains and buses that provide good services.
People will not be encouraged to use public transportation, whether rail or bus, unless there is a good dependable service, particularly for people coming to work. That is why the regional transportation strategy identifies a significant increase in the amount of funds that will be available for public transport. Indeed, the amount of funds that has been spent in the past 10 years will be doubled over the next 10 years.

Omagh Wastewater Treatment Works

Mr Joe Byrne: 5. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the expected start and completion dates for the construction of the proposed Omagh wastewater treatment works; and to make a statement.
(AQO748/01)

Mr Peter Robinson: Last January, we announced that the new wastewater treatment works for Omagh should be constructed at Mountjoy, and not on the site of the existing works at Hunter’s Crescent. Considerable progress has been made with detailed studies to prepare for the construction of the works.
Preliminary land and planning investigations are ongoing, and the planning application will be submitted to the Planning Service later this month. Formal negotiations will begin shortly for the acquisition of land for the new works and access road. Subject to planning approval and completion of all land issues, it is expected that the contract for the design and construction of the new works will commence in October 2003. It will take two years to complete, and the estimated cost is £10 million.

Mr Joe Byrne: Can the Minister assure me that the design process by Department for Regional Development officials is progressing? Can he also assure me that officials from the Department for Regional Development and the Department of the Environment will expedite the planning process?

Mr Peter Robinson: I recently visited the existing Omagh wastewater treatment works and spoke with the team in the area about the proposals. The Member probably already knows that they are as enthusiastic as he is to move to the new order. The design proposals are well advanced. The next major stage is the planning stage, which is being given a fair wind by Omagh District Council. I am sure that the Member will also support it.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Is the Minister prepared to meet with residents’ representatives in the Strathroy, Derry Road, Hunter’s Crescent, Gortrush and Mountjoy areas of Omagh to listen to concerns about the relocation of the treatment works and how those matters can be approached?

Mr Peter Robinson: I understood that people in those areas welcomed the Department’s proposal. If they have a concern, it is that the Department should get on with it as quickly as possible. We have taken some interim steps to ensure that some of their problems are dealt with. For example, when I was in the area, I was told of the flooding that can occur. As I understand it, more drainage tanks are being constructed so that the surrounding area does not have problems in times of heavy rainfall.
Interim steps are being taken to alleviate some of the area’s problems. Ultimately, however, those problems will be better resolved when the Department can proceed with the wastewater treatment works at the new site.

Bangor to Belfast Railway Line

Mr Alan McFarland: 6. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the progress and estimated completion date for the re-lay of the Bangor to Belfast railway line.
(AQO735/01)

Mr Peter Robinson: Translink advised that the Bangor to Craigavad line was re-laid and brought into service, with effect from 14 January this year. Work is now taking place on the line in the other direction, from Craigavad to Bangor. The track has been lifted, and drainage works are under way. Bottom ballast is being installed, and the track re-laying machine recommenced operation on 27 January.
Re-railing work is also taking place on both lines between Craigavad and Belfast. In addition, drainage works will have to be carried out on sections of the lines between Craigavad and Holywood. That work, together with the replacement of sleepers, is due to commence shortly. All work is due for completion in April 2002.

Mr Alan McFarland: I understand that the whole project is behind schedule. Phase 1 is taking the same length of time as was estimated for the entire project, and it is not yet complete. Will the Minister comment on the potential costs of that overspend and the potential knock-on effects on other projects? Is he happy with Translink’s management of the project?

Mr Peter Robinson: Taking the last point first, the original project managers have been replaced. I was not pleased that that was necessary. I ask the House not to press me too much on the matter, because legal issues arise from it, but that caused some of the delay. Secondly, the track re-laying machine arrived in Northern Ireland late. The machine came from the USA, obviously not by first-class post. Nonetheless, it is now doing the job. Thirdly, the main contractors encountered problems in the signalling work. I expect that there will be an overrun in costs, but we have been unable to ascertain the exact extent of that.

Northern Ireland Railways: New Rolling Stock

Mr William Hay: 7. asked the Minister for Regional Development what progress has been made in acquiring new rolling stock for Northern Ireland Railways.
(AQO712/01)

Mr Peter Robinson: The process of procuring new rolling stock for Northern Ireland Railways is nearing completion. That has been managed to date by a rolling stock steering group comprised of senior officials from Translink, the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and my Department.
The steering group has been advised by professional consultants with expertise in train procurement. An independent panel of experts with industry-specific expertise has quality assured the procurement process. The rolling stock steering group has completed the process of evaluating the tenders and will shortly make a recommendation to the board of the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company, which is responsible for awarding the contract.
The delivery dates for the new trains are still being discussed, but each of the 23 new train sets should be ready for scheduled passengers approximately six months after delivery, following a commissioning period by Northern Ireland Railways.

Mr William Hay: The Minister is aware of the serious infrastructure problems in the whole of the Northern Ireland railway system. Can he assure us that as new trains arrive in Northern Ireland, the infrastructure and the system will also be improved?

Mr Peter Robinson: The responsibility for the operation falls to Translink. Members of the Committee for Regional Development will know that we are examining the structural issues involved in that.
I was disappointed to learn that the tender negotiations showed that the date of the expected delivery appeared to be unrealistic. The Department has asked Translink and the Committee to determine what the new delivery date might be. Members will be disappointed by a delay, but the industry claims that the dates were unrealistic.

Mr Derek Hussey: Northern Ireland Railways (NIR) seems to be concentrating on heavy rail. Is the Minister aware of any approaches or costing that NIR may have made for rolling stock for light rail?

Mr Peter Robinson: When I first took office, I faced a general view from the Northern Ireland Office that all railways in Northern Ireland would close. The Department has attempted to stop that by consolidating the core and building it up. I am not sure that there would be a ready funding response from the Department of Finance and Personnel for a light rail system. I have no doubt that, theoretically at least, Translink is looking at those matters. However, our immediate task is to build up the attractiveness of the core network that A D Little identified, encourage passengers on to those trains and, at that stage, attempt to enhance the overall network.

The environment

Mr Donovan McClelland: Question 16, in the name of Mr Barry McElduff, has been transferred to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and will receive a written answer.

River Corridors

Ms Mary Nelis: 1. asked the Minister of the Environment if he has any plans to legislate for and to promote protected river corridors to ensure fishery interests are included in the planning process.
(AQO756/01)

Mr Sam Foster: Legislation is not required for that purpose. Existing planning policy provides for the protection of river corridors and fishery interests where appropriate. Relevant planning policies can be found in the recently published regional development strategy for Northern Ireland, the planning strategy for rural Northern Ireland and in planning policy statement 2: planning and nature conservation.
The Department may also, through the development plan process, seek to control development along river corridors. During the preparation of a development plan, consultation with other Departments and agencies, district councils, local interests groups and the public often highlights specific areas where such policy protection is justified and should be considered. Each river corridor must be treated on its merits, and the Department could not sustain a blanket policy restricting all development in such areas.
If a specific planning application raised fishery interests, the Department would normally consult with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Depending on the nature and location of the development, consultation replies may also be requested from the Fisheries Conservancy Board, Foyle Fisheries in the Foyle catchment area, the water quality unit of the Environment and Heritage Service, the Rivers Agency, angling clubs in the locality and the leisure and inland waterways division of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Advice received would be taken into account before a final decision is taken on such applications.
In addition, my Colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, advises me that, in the planning and execution of its drainage programme, that Department has a statutory duty to protect fishery interests.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. I raised the question in response to appeals — that seem to have fallen on deaf ears — from the Faughan Anglers’ Association to the many agencies that the Minister mentioned. If the Minister visited the area, he would see that, due to the dumping of waste and sand extraction, the area around the Faughan River is similar to a lunar landscape. Does the Minister consider the planning policies that he outlined sufficient to protect the environment and the river corridors?

Mr Sam Foster: I thank the Member for her question. All the aspects that she referred to are considered in any planning application. The Department considers all objective decisions and views of consultees, and it is aware of the need to protect the environment. However, if there are other more specific issues that the Member would like to refer to me, I would appreciate it if she were to write to me.

Mr Ken Robinson: Did the Department of the Environment contribute to the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee’s inquiry into inland fisheries in Northern Ireland? Will the Minister undertake to consult with his ministerial Colleague to ensure that the tertiary treatment will operate in the new sewerage facility at Larne, thus protecting the interests of the local shellfishermen in Larne Lough and ensuring that high levels of water quality are achieved?

Mr Sam Foster: As I said in my previous answer, we do, and will, take into consideration all the issues that affect people in the areas concerned — including the Larne area. During its inquiry into inland fisheries in Northern Ireland, the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure made several recommendations that relate to the Department of the Environment. The Department responded fully to those. Officials have been invited to, and have agreed to attend, a meeting of the Committee to discuss the recommendations further.

Planning Applications: Backlog

Mr Edwin Poots: 2. asked the Minister of the Environment what progress has been made on reducing the backlog of planning applications.
(AQO737/01)

Mr Sam Foster: During 2000-01, the backlog was reduced by 17%, despite a rise in application numbers of 4·5%. Regrettably, by the end of December 2001, the initial reduction in the backlog had fallen to under 5%. There were several obstacles to progress during 2001. The impact of foot-and-mouth disease delayed the consideration of a substantial number of applications, and local government elections affected consultation arrangements with councils. Planning application numbers increased by a further 6%, representing more than 1,000 applications. If that level of increase were to be sustained, it would represent a 19% increase during the period 1999-2000 to 2001-02. The Planning Service is still recruiting and training new staff to deal with the increased workload. The number of planning decisions issued by the end of December 2001 is up by 3% on last year, despite the obstacles encountered earlier in the year. That increase represents 438 applications.

Mr Edwin Poots: I accept the validity of the reasons that the Minister outlined for the backlog not being cleared as quickly as it might have been. However, how many applications are outstanding after a period of six months, and how many are outstanding after a period of one year? Has the Minister set a new date for clearing the backlog of planning applications?

Mr Sam Foster: The difficulties experienced in 2001 are, of course, disappointing. I will therefore be monitoring closely the progress that can be made by the end of the year. Much also depends on the increase in planning application numbers. I assure the Member that the Department of the Environment will continue to do its best to reduce the backlog. At the end of December 2001, there were 656 planning applications in the system for the Lisburn district. Of those, 397 are regarded as backlog cases. However, that must be viewed against a 12% rise in application numbers in the Lisburn district. That increase represents 105 applications.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Could the backlog be made worse by the problems that some people face with planning applications for small businesses in rural areas under the Peace II and rural development programme funding?

Mr Sam Foster: It is difficult to predict such issues. We take each application as it comes. We cannot be sure where applications will come from. However, I assure the Member that the process is under pressure. The economy is going so well in Northern Ireland that extra pressure is being put on us all. Sometimes we wonder if we are able to cope with all the applications. The Member raises an important issue that it is good to address. However, we cannot predict what planning applications will be made. We deal with them as they come, and each application is taken on its own merit.

Sewage Treatment Works (Dundrum)

Mr Mick Murphy: 3. asked the Minister of the Environment to give his assessment of the environmental impact of the sewage works at Dundrum on the condition of the Newcastle beach; and to make a statement.
(AQO741/01)

Mr Sam Foster: During the 2001 season, the bathing water at Newcastle failed to comply with the mandatory coliform bacteria standards of the EC Bathing Water Directive. The Environment and Heritage Service monitors bathing waters at 27 locations around the coast of Northern Ireland. The monitoring results for the 2001 bathing season showed that the bathing water at Murlough Bay, which is the closest monitoring site to inner Dundrum Bay, complied with the guideline coliform standards of the Directive. That clearly shows that the Dundrum waste water treatment works is not having an adverse environmental impact on Murlough Bay.
Given that Newcastle is over seven kilometres away, it seems unlikely that the works have any such impact on the bathing water at Newcastle. My officials consider that the failure of the bathing water at Newcastle to meet Directive standards is due to excessive discharges from the sewer overflows. Agriculture run-off and the frequent effluent from the Newcastle waste water treatment works may also be contributory factors.

Mr Mick Murphy: As the Minister is aware, Newcastle was not awarded blue flag status. Given the Minister’s assessment, the damage done to the coast and the fact that Newcastle is one of the top three tourist destinations, can the Minister assure us that he will assist Down District Council in its bid for blue flag status in the future? Furthermore, will he take into consideration the bad weather over the weekend and the damage caused to the seafront and the coast in the Newcastle, Killough, and Ardglass areas? Will he put in place the necessary infrastructure to repair this damage, and will he also support those whose homes were damaged by flooding over the weekend? Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Sam Foster: Some of the issues that the hon Member raised are not within my remit, so I cannot give him assurances on those matters. However, where responsibility lies with the Department of the Environment, we will take action accordingly. The waste water treatment works at Newcastle already has secondary treatment, and the effluent complied with the Urban Waste Water Directive’s registered discharge standard in 2001.
However, there are major concerns about storm overflow discharges from both the works and the sewerage system. My Department has called for improvements to those systems to protect the bathing water in the future. The improvements to the Newcastle sewerage system will involve the Water Service carrying out an assessment of the performance of the system using a hydraulic sewer model. That model will be assessed against the current agreed guidelines for overflow discharges and improvements agreed to provide the required level of environmental protection.

Mr Jim Wilson: My question relates to the ongoing problem of waterway pollution and waste water treatment works. Will the Minister undertake to prepare a report on the number of pollution incidents on our waterways, and the number and nature of related fish kills in Northern Ireland during 2001?

Mr Sam Foster: In 2001 there were 47 fish kills, in comparison with annual figures of around 40 in recent years. While I deplore all pollution incidents, especially those causing significant fish kills, it is encouraging that there has been a reduction of 27% in the number of medium- and high-severity pollution incidents, including fish kills, between 1996 and 2001.
An Environment and Heritage Service report on pollution incidents and prosecution statistics for 2001 is being prepared for publication in April. This report will be put on the Environment and Heritage Service web site.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I again remind Members to ensure that their supplementary questions are relevant to the oral questions.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I hope that my question will be relevant. Does the Minister agree that the condition of the Newcastle beach has more to do with the Newcastle sewerage works than the Dundrum sewerage works and that its condition would be greatly improved if the Minister for Regional Development brought forward the promised improvements to the Newcastle sewerage works? Can the Minister use his good offices to try to facilitate that?

Mr Sam Foster: I cannot answer on behalf of the Minister for Regional Development. The level of sewage discharges in that area needs to be examined. The results of that monitoring will be assessed according to the current guidelines for overflow discharges and improvements. The intention of the current guidelines is to seek improvement, and the Department of the Environment will do so within its remit.
The litter on Newcastle beach and its overall condition are, in the first instance, matters for Newry and Mourne District Council.

Water Framework Directive

Mr David Ford: 4. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive.
(AQO720/01)

Mr Sam Foster: The European Water Framework Directive came into force on 22 December 2000. It establishes a new, comprehensive system for the protection and improvement of Europe’s water environment on the basis of river basin management plans. The aim of the Directive is to achieve a good status for all surface and ground waters throughout the European Union by 2015. It requires the development of a strategic managerial approach based on river basin districts. The provisions of the Directive are to be transposed into the national legislation of member states by the end of 2003. Further steps include an analysis of river basin characteristics, a review of the impact of human activity on surface and ground water, and an economic analysis of water used — all are to be completed by the end of 2004.
Responsibility for the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive in Northern Ireland lies with my Department and its agency, the Environment and Heritage Service. My Department has established a steering group, comprising representatives of the Northern Ireland Departments and agencies that are affected by the Directive, to assist in the process. My Department will publish this spring a first consultation paper on the implementation of the Directive in Northern Ireland. The paper will outline the Directive’s provisions, and will invite views on its key issues as they affect Northern Ireland. I look forward to receiving comments on how to implement the Directive in a way that best suits Northern Ireland’s needs and circumstances.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Minister for his complete response. We are all aware of the staffing and resources problems that the Department of the Environment has suffered for several years, and which the Minister has tried to redress over the last couple of years. Can he assure us that he will have the necessary staff and financial resources to implement the necessary legislative change by next year and the necessary administrative changes by the year after, which would ensure that the targets are met and we do not lag behind?

Mr Sam Foster: I assure Members of that, in so far as it is possible to do so. I have been successful in the last two Budgets in securing additional resources for the transposition and implementation of EU Directives relating to the environment. When the recruitment process is completed, my Department’s environmental policy division will have increased from 34 to 64 staff, while the water quality unit and the Environment and Heritage Service will have grown from 37 to 74 staff. Those staffing increases need to be regarded in the context of the backlog of key Directives to be implemented and transposed, which I inherited from the time of direct rule. Together with the new Directives that have been introduced since devolution, including the Water Framework Directive, and imminent legislation, they create a daunting task for my officials.
In order to meet all the European requirements, I expect to bring some 40 to 50 pieces of environmental legislation before the Assembly over the next few years.

Mr Derek Hussey: In my experience of the Foyle system — and the Minister will know this, given his experience of the Erne system — river systems do not necessarily recognise political boundaries. What plans is he making to implement the cross-border aspects of the Water Framework Directive?

Mr Sam Foster: If a river basin district covers the territory of more than one European member state, the Water Framework Directive requires that that area be identified as an international river basin district. Member states are required to co-operate on the management of water quality in those shared districts through appropriate administrative arrangements.
As I said in my statement to the Assembly on 14 January, a joint working group on water quality has also been set up by the environment sector of the North/South Ministerial Council. Among other things, that will provide for the co-operative arrangements required by the Directive in respect of international river basin districts. The catchments of the Erne, Foyle, and Lough Neagh are shared with the South. As such, they must be included in international river basin districts under the terms of the Directive.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: What fines is the Department of the Environment paying at present because EU Directives have not been implemented, and what fines are pending?

Mr Sam Foster: The Department prosecutes pollution offenders where the evidence permits. We seek the full recovery of our costs, including those of investigation and cleaning up waterways after pollution incidents. We liaise closely with the fishery authorities to ensure that those who cause fish kills also pay for restocking.
The fines levied by the courts are outside our control. The maximum fine for pollution offences is £20,000. The Department has conveyed the seriousness of water pollution offences to the Northern Ireland Court Service so that it can brief magistrates.

Driving Test Statistics

Mr Billy Armstrong: 5. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail driving test pass/fail ratio statistics for the past 12-month period; and to make a statement.
(AQO747/01)

Mr Sam Foster: In the 12 months up to 31 December 2001, driving test pass rates were 52% for the normal "L" test for car drivers, 70% for motorcycles, 71% for buses and 54% for lorries.
The driving test in Northern Ireland is demanding. In 1999 it was updated to include more time on the road, driving on dual carriageways and other higher speed roads as well as a new approach to manoeuvres. New test marking procedures and other measures to enhance the quality and consistency of the test have also been introduced. Since 1999 rates have gradually reduced to present levels.
About 40,000 driving tests are conducted each year by my Department’s Driver & Vehicle Testing Agency (DVTA). The quality of testing is monitored carefully and regularly in order to maintain consistency and high standards. During the past 10 years, two reviews of testing standards have been carried out in Northern Ireland by the Driving Standards Agency, and as a result of a recommendation by the Public Accounts Committee in November 2000 the DVTA agreed that such independent reviews should continue at five-year intervals. The next review is due in 2004.

Mr Billy Armstrong: In the light of those figures, can the Minister assure the House that driving examiners, while ensuring that we have high-quality drivers, will not be allowed to fail candidates unnecessarily? Does the Minister agree that test examiners should be brought under greater scrutiny in order to ensure consistency and equality?

Mr Sam Foster: In Great Britain, pass rates between the test centres vary from 17% to 72%, a spread of 55 percentage points. In Northern Ireland, the variation is from 40% to 65%, a spread of just 25 percentage points. Various factors produce minor differences on pass rates between centres, including road and traffic conditions and standards of instruction. However, procedures are in place to monitor and supervise driving examiners to ensure that testing standards are consistent and appropriate. Driving examiners are thoroughly trained alongside Great Britain examiners, and their training is updated from time to time. Supervising examiners also regularly sit in on the tests to ensure that standards are maintained, and independent reviews of testing standards are conducted every five years. Every four years, the agency checks driving instructors to ensure that their techniques and abilities to give instructions meet the required standard.

Causeway Management Plan

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 6. asked the Minister of the Environment to outline the terms and conditions of the Causeway management plan.
(AQO714/01)

Mr Sam Foster: The Member should by now have received my reply to his letter, which was addressed to the permanent secretary. Included with that letter was an annex, which sets out in detail the aims of the management plan for that area of outstanding natural beauty. The aim is to establish a framework for the management of this landscape, particularly to conserve and improve the Giant’s Causeway World Heritage Site. The plan is being prepared by consultants, overseen by my Department’s Environment and Heritage Service. We have set up an advisory group of experts, assisted by a working group of local interests. The management plan is a non-statutory plan designed to deal with the whole range of visitor management and related issues that have an impact on this area. It is planned to publish an issues paper for consultation in March. That will be followed by a draft plan to be published in June, again for public consultation. A final plan is to be provided to the Department in November, and I expect to publish the agreed management plan in January 2003.
The management plan will also inform the statutory Northern area plan, which is being prepared by my Department’s Planning Service. This latter plan will also be the subject of full public consultation as well as a public inquiry. I have taken the decision to give high priority to preparing the management plan in acknowledgement of the special qualities of the Causeway area and the pressures affecting it. My Department has prepared an information leaflet to provide further background on the plan to the public, and copies have been made available to Members.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Minister for his reply and his letter, which I received at the end of last week. Does the Minister agree that the Causeway area and the Glens of Antrim are among the most special and delightful parts of Northern Ireland? Will he confirm that the management plan will simply be advisory for this area and that a balanced voice will be given to private sector experts while the plan is being prepared? Will he also confirm that his Department will not agree to the National Trust’s call to vest the land that Moyle District Council is selling? Does he agree that nothing should be done that would give unfair advantage, promote their interests or frustrate the interests of others by those involved in the plan or the actions of the Department?

Mr Sam Foster: I assure the Member generally that whatever takes place in the Causeway coast area will happen in an objective and impartial manner. There will be no advantage for any one person or group. The management plan referred to by Mr Paisley will be a non-statutory plan dealing with many issues outside the remit of the Planning Service but informing the area plan being prepared by that service. The plan will look at the issues surrounding the quality of the landscape of this area of outstanding natural beauty, the protection of the World Heritage Site and how some of those matters can be best translated into policy and action. The management plan will inform the preparation of the statutory area plan, and it will be for the Planning Service to address matters relating to building development through that statutory process.

Mr James Leslie: Is the Minister aware of the considerable local concern about the pace and nature of development in the Causeway area of outstanding natural beauty and of the need for much stricter planning guidelines to protect this priceless scenic asset?

Mr Sam Foster: As is everyone in Northern Ireland at this time, I am very much aware of the great concern that exists about the Causeway coast area in and around the Giant’s Causeway, which is a World Heritage Site. I assure the House that, within my Department’s remit, we will ensure that it will be zealously guarded and that anything that takes place there will be in keeping with the World Heritage Sites’ values.

Ards and Down Area Plan

Mr Eddie McGrady: 7. asked the Minister of the Environment when the draft Ards and Down area plan will be published; and to make a statement.
(AQO711/01)

Mr Sam Foster: Publication of the draft Ards and Down area plan is programmed in the Planning Service’s current corporate and business plan for March 2002. However, it is now expected that the publication date will be May 2002. Notice of intention to prepare the Ards and Down area plan 2015 was published in March 1999. Initial research was carried out at the Planning Service’s headquarters, and the divisional plan team was established in May 2000. Following publication of an issues paper in December 2000, several well-attended public meetings were held in January 2001. Following these meetings and other consultations, over 800 representations were received. Those will help inform the content of the draft plan to be published.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for a reply in which he has announced yet another delay in the publication of the Down and Ards plan. My interest is in Down particularly.
Does the Minister agree that the current planning and decision-making process in County Down is based on the late 1980s and is woefully out of date, and that current development is being stymied by the fact that there has not been a review of planning restrictions and regulations in that area for 15 years? Development is taking place and development has also been restricted. The work of the Minister’s Department, and that of many other offices involved in infrastructure development, is being hampered. Can he give a final guarantee that the new date of May 2002 is final, and that the plan will be published then?

Mr Sam Foster: I know that Mr McGrady and other Members from that area are concerned. As far as it is possible to be absolute about anything, I can give an assurance that the plan will be published on the date stated. The old plan will remain of material consideration for any future planning until the new plan has become fruitful.

Mr Jim Shannon: What steps have the Minister and his Department taken to encourage developers and builders to contribute to the local community through the area plan by providing roads, schools and so forth? Can the Minister confirm that the days when developers produced wall-to-wall houses have gone for good and that any applications they make must show a direct and positive contribution to the future life of the area? Will he also confirm that a balance between the equality initiative and social infrastructure is required?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Unfortunately, our time is up. I am sure that the Minister will give the Member a written answer.

Regional Transportation Strategy

Debate resumed on motion:
That this Assembly takes note of the proposed regional transportation strategy consultation paper published on 4 February 2002. — [The Minister for Regional Development.]

Mr William Hay: Before Question Time, I was proposing that the Minister and his Department consider a separate transportation strategy for the north and west of the Province, especially for Londonderry. Londonderry has a population of 105,000 and a hinterland of another 200,000, making a total population of around 300,000.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. Members will please leave quietly, or continue their conversations outside the Chamber.

Mr William Hay: The case has been well made not only by our council in Londonderry but also by many of the councils in the north-west of the Province. When the Committee for Regional Development visited our council area and talked to various council representatives from the north-west, a unique case was made for exploring a separate transportation strategy, similar to that in Belfast, for the north-west of the Province. As the document on transportation for the next 10 years is presented today, I appeal to the Minister to give that issue serious consideration.
Overall, the document is a good starting point. As we look forward to the next 10 years, I hope that we can envisage a transportation system for Northern Ireland that we can all be proud of.

Mr Pat McNamee: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom cúpla pointe a dhéanamh maidir leis an straitéis seo gan pointe ar bith a athrá atá déanta ag Comhaltaí eile cheana féin.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the continuing development of the regional transportation strategy. I will try not to repeat points that have already been made.
The Minister’s foreword to the proposed regional transportation strategy states:
"Getting the balance right between competing transportation proprieties is a challenge for us all — especially since funding is finite and our current transportation assets are in poor condition following years of under-investment."
Following a recent visit to Europe, and having looked at some of the excellent public transportation networks, the Committee for Regional Development would find it easy to have an optimistic vision of a regional transportation strategy in this region. However, as the Minister’s foreword identifies, funding is finite, so the strategy has to be earthed in reality in the light of the funding available and the funding that is likely to become available.
The years of underinvestment and the backlog of road maintenance will influence the percentage of funding allocated to roads as opposed to other forms of transport. Although some Assembly Members may wish to see a more adventurous regional transportation strategy, the strategy has to be based on where we are.
The strategy is based on assumed funding. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development has referred to a significant part of the total additional funding of £950 million over the next 10 years. A significant part of that amount is the £500 million that it is assumed will be available from an increase in baseline funding and/or from Executive programme funds. What is envisaged in the transportation strategy will be dependent on that.
Another significant part of the additional funding on which the strategy is based is £325 million from the private sector. While recognising that the Programme for Government identifies the need to find other sources of income apart from public spending, any acceptance of a private initiative, be it a public-private partnership, a design, build, finance and operate project or a system of bonds would have to be evaluated on an individual basis. Any decision to accept would be based on consideration of the short-term costs and benefits of each project and, indeed, the longer-term costs and benefits of any private finance initiative and the implications of that for public spending.
The developing strategy has advanced from the initial document, and it contains some outcomes and targets. The Committee pointed out that the regional transportation strategy should contain targets to enable implementation to be measured. I welcome the fact that the strategy has identified targets for pollution levels, increased usage of public transport, increased provision of public transport services, and accident reduction. Those can be found on page 25 of the summary document.
As the strategy continues to develop, targets will need to be identified for the increased use of alternative cleaner fuels and the increased use of cleaner vehicles and more energy-efficient and environmentally-friendly vehicles. As the strategy develops, it should also identify targets for the reduction of congestion and journey times on key transport corridors in the region.
In developing a regional transportation strategy, it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel. We can learn from experiences in other places, particularly in other European cities and rural areas. Although other transportation solutions may not be able to be transported to this region because of different circumstances and parameters, we need to take account of how good transport solutions have been achieved, particularly in some European urban areas. I will return, time permitting, to some of those issues.
The strategy states that there will be a sub-regional transport plan for areas outside the Belfast metropolitan area. A Member said that he would like a sub-regional plan for a particular region in the north-west. It may not be practical to have a sub-regional plan for the three cross-border regions. However, the Minister and the Department should take into account the submission made by the north-west cross-border group on the importance of the key transport corridors from Belfast to Derry, Monaghan to Omagh and Omagh to Derry — not just for Derry, Strabane and Limavady — but for the council region of Donegal in the South.
The Irish central border area network (ICBAN) also published a document on the importance of transportation to the economic development of its cross-border region, which includes Fermanagh, Armagh, Monaghan, Cavan and Leitrim. The east border region committee has also done work on economic development and on the requirements of transportation in that region. The views of those three groups should be taken into consideration when formulating the sub-regional plan for areas other than the Belfast metropolitan area.
A draft equality impact assessment has been carried out on the regional transportation strategy. However, given the importance of transportation to accessing health services and given the limited number of hospitals with acute services and accident and emergency services and their location, will the Minister comment on the health impact assessment of the regional transportation strategy?
There are some related initiatives to be carried out in association with the regional transportation strategy. Some of those initiatives include publishing strategic planning policy statements on transportation and land use, housing and settlements, retailing and town centres and the countryside. Transport cannot be separated from land use and planning. That is particularly important in large urban areas such as the Belfast metropolitan area. An essential part of any urban transportation plan must be the management of urban space. One of the major themes of the regional development strategy is integrating land use and transportation planning. Therefore the planning policy statements, particularly the transportation and land use statement, should form part of the regional transportation strategy. The regional development strategy of September 2001 states that it is an objective to have a modern, sustainable, safe transportation system that benefits society, the economy and the environment, and which actively contributes to social inclusion and to everyone’s quality of life.
The Northern Ireland transport policy statement ‘Moving Forward’ also states that there should be a change signalled on the important step of developing a strategy to enable a move away from transport strategy dominated by car usage to a more balanced and integrated system in which public transport and non-motorised transport will be attractive options for many trips. Both ‘Shaping Our Future’, of which the ‘Regional Transportation Strategy’ is the daughter document, and the ‘Moving Forward’ document agree.
In relation to those objectives, I want to return to the European examples of good practice and transportation. There are a number of principles that are common to urban transportation strategy and policy. They are common to the European Commission Director-General’s White Paper for energy and transport, and they are common to the International Association of Public Transport, which involves public transport authorities across the world. They are also common to the strategies of transport authorities in Europe, which have developed successful transportation systems. Those principles are: traffic congestion costs money; productive time is lost by people who spend more time travelling; commerce suffers from late and more expensive deliveries; and private car usage is not sustainable. Congestion and private car usage are not conducive to prosperous economic development.
Another principle that has been recognised and accepted within those policies is that cars take up space. There are a number of photographs — unfortunately I do not have them here — which made a comparison between the amount of space taken up on a road by four buses carrying 200 people as opposed to private cars carrying the same number of people with an occupancy of about 1·4 persons per vehicle. An accepted principle of those transportation strategies is that cars are not urban-space efficient, and it has also been identified that cars are not energy efficient.
In terms of environmental quality and the quality of life of people living in urban areas, public transportation is a much more acceptable form of transport than the private vehicle. Cars contribute to pollution; they contribute to noise levels; and they compare unfavourably with public transport alternatives.
In addition to those principles, there is the issue of social inclusion. The Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development stated that 30% of households in the North do not have access to a private car, and the best way to achieve social inclusion, which is also an objective of the Programme for Government and the regional development strategy, is the promotion of a safe public transport system. The regional transportation strategy must take those principles on board as the strategy develops.
The experience in some European cities is that it can take 20 to 30 years to create a modal shift, particularly in large conurbations. It is not easy to change people’s transport attitudes and habits. The regional transportation strategy covers a period of 10 years, and it is essential that as it develops, it enables us to achieve a modal shift in transportation usage and a forward-looking and sustainable transportation system. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr David Ford: I welcome the Minister’s statement and the initiation of the debate. Perhaps it is appropriate that we should welcome the fact that the Minister has seen fit to launch the report with a debate in the Assembly, even though it means that some of us are commenting having had only a brief opportunity to look through a fairly detailed paper. At least it shows that there is some recognition of the role of the Assembly — it was not announced to the BBC first. There are many issues in the strategy that will require detailed consideration not just between now and mid-April, the formal consultation period, but by the Assembly and various Committees over a longer period.
The primary issue seems to come down to funding. The Minister has detailed the money that has already been allocated and the additional money that has been identified as necessary. However, it is clear that even those sums will not be adequate to provide the quality public transport service that we require together with the improvements that also appear to be required by certain roads. The Assembly must address the problem of Treasury funding.
The Minister identified £80 million from developers’ contributions. I hope that that sort of money can be extracted. The Minister and his Colleague, the Minister of the Environment, may have left it too late to obtain realistic sums. We are already overloaded with out-of-town shopping centres and out-of-town industrial estates, which have created many of our transport problems, yet no contribution will be made. Recently, Belfast City Airport’s terminal building was rebuilt, and yet there was no developer’s contribution to provide a link to the railway line, which runs about 30 yards away. Thinking along these lines is much needed, and I hope that the Minister can make something of it.
It is the Minister’s expectation that the private sector will contribute £325 million. That kind of money would make a difference, yet there is no indication as to how it can be obtained. I have seen examples where PPPs add significantly to public goods in those areas where there is a semi-commercial activity. Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I know that the Antrim town centre development is a classic example. However, in many cases it is questionable that PPPs can deliver the necessary public goods for a public service. The document does not contain much detail as to how that will be dealt with.
Bonds receive a brief and passing mention, but this is an issue that has to be addressed by the Assembly. Will the Minister explain more about bonds in his winding-up speech? It is as if the issue was mentioned and immediately dropped when someone whispered "Watch out for the Treasury — look what happened to Ken Livingstone." There is no doubt that bonds played their part in New York and could also have played a part in Mr Kiley’s plans for London Transport. It may be that the Assembly could consider bonds as a suitable way to raise funds that are not otherwise available.
There are a couple of points that have not been mentioned. It appears that 10% of people walk to work. There is one way in which the regional transportation strategy could tie into the regional development strategy. Will we allow massively increasing suburbanisation? Today’s increasingly smaller families would accept homes near to jobs in a way that the traditional mum, dad and 2·4 children would not — they wish to live in the suburbs. That could be considered as a strategic development issue. Let us not assume that walking is what people do at either end of a car journey.
Although a good national cycle network is proposed for Northern Ireland, very little of it is providing people with the opportunity to undertake urban journeys in safety. It is good to know that there is a cycle network along the north coast from Portrush to Portstewart, and, on a good day, it might even tempt some of us to use it. However, that is not meeting the transportation needs in our urban areas.
The Minister will be disappointed if I do not dwell at length on railways, especially since there is a suggestion in the report that some MLAs and community groups will bitterly oppose any retrenchment on the railway system. Yes, Minister, we most certainly will. The Knockmore railway line is not functioning properly because it has three badly timed services a day, but that does not mean that some of us do not see it as a major opportunity for public transport services in that area. There is population growth in all the villages along the line, as well as in Antrim and Lisburn at each end. The Dublin Area Rapid Transport system (DART), which is a straight line, has been referred to. In Belfast we have the opportunity for a circle line, serving the growing villages of Crumlin, Glenavy and Ballinderry, and also those along the northern loop such as Templepatrick, Ballyclare and Mossley. It would be crazy to allow a facility like that to disappear in the short term when it could provide such good opportunities in the long term.
It is disappointing to see that a great question mark remains over the main part of the railway structure outside the immediate suburban area. The line from Ballymena to Derry is under threat, as is the line to Larne. We have already seen problems with the Bangor line, but at least it will be retained. Surely lessons were learnt in the 1960s, that every time an arm is chopped off a railway system, it becomes harder to attract passengers on to the core lines of the system, because the input of passengers is reduced? The system is greater than the sum of its parts.
Surely the rail issue requires a closer examination. The entire rail system should be examined and, in particular, the issue of the integration of rail services with bus facilities or car parks at either end to attract passengers away from cars. As I said earlier, a Templepatrick park-and-ride station to get people from Coleraine off the M2 seems a far better solution to the strategic problems of travelling from the north than to build an additional lane on the M2, where there is no room for it. Those problems are still there and still require significant funding. However, railways will require less funding than that we anticipate devoting to roads in congested urban areas.
There are other areas of disappointment. I draw the Minister’s attention to a map in the regional development strategy that purports to show urban areas. It shows places such as Kilkeel and Comber — which are undoubtedly of great importance to Members from south Down and Strangford — but not Antrim, which according to the regional transportation strategy is a major growth town. Perhaps if we decided what the urban areas are, it would help us when discussing urban matters.
There is no way that we will deal with the problems of excessive road traffic without grasping the nettle of congestion and parking charges. However, there is no mention of how we are to deal with it in relation to out-of-town shopping centres, for example. If we start charging for congestion in town centres, but fail to address the problems of out-of-town shopping centres with acres of car parks, we will merely drive whatever life there is left in town centres out into the country. That must be seen as detrimental on environmental grounds. Undoubtedly, the most efficient public transport systems are those which bring people into the centre of a conurbation, not those that disperse people around ring roads to shop in the sort of developments that have grown up recently.
The reference to a rapid transport pilot is to be welcomed. However, is it not scandalous, and probably a situation that is unique to Belfast, that the Comber rail line has an interesting variety of trees growing on it, but it makes no contribution to the public transport needs of east Belfast? It could relieve congestion on the Newtownards Road as a guided bus route.
Why have Translink’s proposals for a quality bus corridor to take buses away from the most congested areas of the Saintfield and Ormeau Roads come to nothing? Why is Belfast the only city in Europe that can manage to be so poor?
There is a fleeting reference to the — yes, Minister, I give way.

Mr Peter Robinson: If the Member wishes to know what happened to that plan, he should ask his Alliance Party colleagues in Castlereagh Borough Council who opposed it.

Mr David Ford: I presume that, since the Minister is alleging that Alliance councillors opposed the plan, it would be a good incentive for a DUP Minister to carry it forward. I thank him for that.
The report acknowledges the findings of the Environment Committee’s report on school transport. It is a major report, and serious funding from the Department of the Environment is required to address the issues. That money has not been forthcoming. I acknowledge that that is not the fault of the Department for Regional Development. However, it is clearly an issue that we cannot cope with the needs of school transport in a regional development strategy if we do not examine the issues that arise and the Department of the Environment’s response to them. It may be the case that the timescale will not permit that to be addressed properly. There is a certain lack of joined-up government between the two arms of what used to be the Department of the Environment.
The report highlights a need for private sector funding. It is not solely a commercial issue in some areas. I hope the Minister will tell us how he will introduce measures such as a public service obligation if he is seeking to go down the line of private funding, because it is not there.
Although the report contains some of the right buzzwords, the financial provision seems to be focused on a predominantly roads-based system. There is no alternative to such a system in rural areas. It will be some time before some of the railway lines in the west of the Province are recreated, if ever.
Although a roads-based system might be appropriate in rural areas and in the more dispersed west, it is not so in Greater Belfast and in many larger towns. The M1, the M2, the Saintfield Road and the Sydenham bypass will be unable to cope with the current demands unless there is a major improvement in public transport. The equality and environmental aspects of the policy require such improvement. I welcome the publication of the report. However, I hope that during the consultation there will be a further shift of emphasis towards provision that better serves the needs of the entire community, not just car users.

Ms Jane Morrice: First and foremost, the opening vision statement of the report,
"to have a modern, sustainable, safe transportation system."
must be changed in order to get the priorities right. The aim should be to have "a safe, modern, sustainable transportation system". Road safety must be the first priority of the regional transportation strategy. The Assembly must address the fact that Northern Ireland has the highest road traffic accident rates in the UK. More people have been killed in road traffic accidents in Northern Ireland than have been killed during the troubles. As stated in the report, in Northern Ireland there are over 10 road deaths per 100,000 of the population, by comparison with five to six deaths per 100,000 in England. The rate in Northern Ireland is almost twice the UK average. According to Prof David Begg, chairperson of the UK Commission for Integrated Transport, a key test of the strategy’s success would be whether Northern Ireland’s accident rate were to drop to the UK average by the end of the 10-year period. If that has not happened, the strategy should be judged a failure.
What shocked me from the outset was that the document sets no specific targets for a reduction in the number of accidents or casualties. It states that its aim is to contribute and, wherever possible, to demonstrate progress towards the achievement of long-term road casualty reduction targets. It states that that will be set in the Northern Ireland road safety strategic plan. What about joined-up government? A diagram on page 69 of the report, which I find quite shocking, suggests that there could be a reduction in road traffic accidents. The bar graph shows what the accident reduction rate could be if the strategy is implemented. In ten years the number of accidents could be reduced by 5%. That would bring Northern Ireland nowhere near the UK average — it is abysmal.
Pages 106 and 107 outline the safety aspects and provide a breakdown of the gains to be derived from certain actions. If the Department for Regional Development introduced accident remedial works on 25 sites, traffic management schemes that could prevent 30 accidents per year, structural maintenance, et cetera, the savings could be £950 million over the ten-year period. How much additional funding does the Department seek? The answer is £950 million. The savings are outlined in the document. The Department simply has to invest more money in measures to reduce accidents, casualties and deaths on the roads and it will have its money. Is that too simple? It is not rocket science.
Much time and energy has been spent on finding sources of additional funding — the Executive, European funding, developers, or public-private partnerships.
The two paragraphs on road safety state that there are 12,000 road traffic casualties per year in Northern Ireland, at the cost of £450 million to the economy per year. If road traffic accidents, casualties and deaths were reduced, it would not mean that the £450 million would go straight back into the Treasury — of course not. However, if a focus on reducing accidents saved even £90 million per year in emergency services — fire brigade, ambulance, health and medical costs — it would be a gain. It is far too simple.
Why are we beating our breasts about where the money will come from when it is already there in the document? Admittedly, a big problem is that hospital fees, doctors’ fees and ambulance costs all go to a different Department. However, when the Minister is making his bid for money for the strategy, can he not explain to the Executive that money will be saved in those areas by focusing on reducing accidents?
A 5% reduction in accidents is referred to. I have talked about the cost to the economy. What about the cost of human suffering? That should be taken into account even more. The strategy is going absolutely nowhere unless it makes a far bigger dent in the road accident, casualty and death rates in Northern Ireland and, at the very least, brings them into line with the UK averages.
There are many ways to fund the strategy. Let us start by getting people off the roads. Every intervention today called for more investment in public transport and pointed out that the allocation of 65% of funds to the road network and 35% to public transport is wrong. If the figures were reversed, we might get somewhere. People will get off the roads and on to the trains and buses, which will start to reduce road accidents and also make a cleaner, greener environment. This is not rocket science — it is very simple.
What about the wonderful Safer Routes to Schools pilot schemes? Instead of piloting them, why are they not introduced for real? Home zones should also be introduced, instead of being piloted. A pilot scheme is not needed to prove that those things work. Money should be spent on those schemes. Traffic management and traffic calming can also save money and lives. That should be the priority.
I have concentrated on road safety because it is, and should be, a priority. However, I compliment the document on issues such as accessibility to buses. Targets have been set for Citybus and Ulsterbus to introduce 100% accessibility to buses for the disabled. Could that not be extended to the rail system? The Omnibus Travel Club campaigns for accessibility to buses. That organisation’s valuable work should be highlighted and used as a model.
The need to invest more in public transport rather than roads has been mentioned. On radio this morning, Lisa Fagan from Friends of the Earth lucidly pointed out that 30% of households in Northern Ireland do not have access to a car and that in Belfast the figure rises to around 50%. Are those figures not taken into account when the strategies are being written? What is happening?
The Minister repeated the objectives set out in the opening paragraphs of the document; I shall do likewise. The first is environmental impact — more money for public transport would benefit the environment. Another objective was to improve safety. Accessibility was another —
"to improve access to facilities for those without a car and to reduce severance."
I assume that that is integration between Departments. I simply ask the Minister to put his money where his mouth is. Four of those objectives could be achieved if he listened, changed his priorities and put much more investment into public transport rather than into roads. That would reduce accidents and would create a cleaner, greener environment. I am glad that the Minister asks us only to "take note" of the report. Judging by today’s debate, I suspect that few of us could have supported a motion asking us to approve this document. Put safety first, Minister. Put safety first — then come back to us.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Members, you are aware that the Speaker put no time limit on the first round of speakers. However, so many Members wish to speak that I must impose a time limit of five minutes. I must also issue a health warning that even with the five-minute limit it may not be possible to call everyone.

Mr Joe Byrne: I congratulate the Minister for moving the motion and for providing us with an opportunity to assess critically the Department for Regional Development’s proposed 10-year transportation strategy. It is fair to say that the regional transportation strategy must complement the regional development strategy and enable its realisation. Transport investment has been badly neglected for decades. For many years there has been no funding in either rail or road. In the western area there is a backlog of roads maintenance, amounting to almost £40 million of the £120 million total cost.
Northern Ireland as a European region, and as a region in this island, can have a proper modern transport system only if it is integrated into those wider systems. I welcome the recognition of the European context in the regional transportation strategy, but there must be a stronger collaboration with the Republic of Ireland.
Equality of treatment across Northern Ireland is a priority for the Assembly, and that is recognised in the Programme for Government. For a long time, I have said that balanced regional development can be pursued only if transport investment is targeted in particular transport modes and across the region, in urban and in rural areas. Past transport planning and investment neglect must be reversed.
Many of us who travel to work in Belfast, even to Parliament Buildings, recognise the congestion in the Greater Belfast area. There is daily evidence that that is the biggest single problem, given the high car usage. In many of our rural areas road transport is the only mode of transport. There is no railway other than the lines from Belfast to Derry, Bangor and Carrickfergus. The high-speed Belfast to Dublin Enterprise train demonstrates what can happen with proper investment in a modern rail transport system.
To have modern transport there must be investment. The real challenge is that £950 million will be needed over the next 10 years to supplement the planned expenditure on transport. There has been much discussion on public-private partnerships, and they have been criticised, but the Executive must seriously examine alternative means of securing funding. My party and I believe in investment in public services, but it seems almost impossible to obtain the necessary investment in transport.
I would like the Minister and the Department to seriously consider the good work that the three cross- border local authority networks have done. In the past ten years, the eastern border counties body, the Irish Central Border Area Network (ICBAN) and the North- West Region Cross-Border Group have completed several transport studies.
In particular, it is important to get investment in both rail and road transport in order to develop the north-west region successfully. Living in a constituency that does not contain one mile of motorway, I see daily the handicap that that constitutes to the business community and the commuter.
In order to successfully develop the region from east to west and from north to south, we must target investment in transport. Other Members referred to over-dependency on car transport. Over 90% of passenger kilometres in Northern Ireland are attributed to car transport; this is out of kilter with our efforts to achieve a sustainable transport system.
I welcome the take-note debate and hope that further consultation will lead to an improved transport system.

Mr Derek Hussey: I give a general welcome to the proposed regional transport strategy, and I thank the Minister and the departmental officials for its production. The decision to grasp the nettle of addressing the issue of prolonged underinvestment in our transport infrastructure is long overdue. We must hope that we can quickly advance the consultation process to the final strategy and begin its much needed implementation. Much has been said by the Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson and other Committee members, and I support their input to the debate.
The proposed areas of spending in the total regional transport strategy funding level are a fair reflection of our population base as shown in the Belfast metropolitan area and other urban and rural areas, with the regional strategy transport network rightly seen as overarching.
Given the much higher level of metres per head of population for road infrastructure in rural areas, the Minister will be aware of my concern about appropriate funding provision for roads maintenance in those areas. I seek his assurance that that factor is adequately provided for in the proposed strategy.
The funding split between transport modes will continue to be the catalyst for discussion both in and beyond the House. I am concerned about the modal emphasis, particularly in the Belfast metropolitan area and other urban areas.
Reference has been made to the Committee for Regional Development’s fact-finding mission to mainland Europe. I found the visit an intensive and valuable exercise, and thank the Committee staff for their excellent organisation and the service that they provided for the Members involved. The results of the Committee’s investigation will contribute to the consultation process, and, I trust, be taken on board by the Minister and the Department.
I am convinced that the modal split, particularly in the Greater Belfast area, must take cognisance of European developments in the use of light rail, tramways, buses and heavy rail in a fully integrated way. It must utilise the most efficient mode for the population density and topography in the area.
To encourage modal shift, such an integrated system will require other ancillary actions such as the provision of park-and-ride facilities; shared terminals; integrated ticketing and timetabling; clearway routes; and financial incentives — or perhaps disincentives.
With regard to funding for rural areas, I support the commitment to improve the highway system, particularly the road maintenance and strategic highway improvements. However, will the Minister consider working towards dual carriageway status for all the key transport corridors within the rural strategic transport network? Given the dependence on the roads network for freight distribution, particularly in the west, such a commitment is vital for the economic success of the entire region. Unlike Ms Morrice, I welcome the recognition in section 6.21 of the summary that
"The private car plays an important and dominant role in rural areas and the Proposed Strategy acknowledges that this will continue for the foreseeable future."
I remind Members that buses also use these roads. The ability of people to travel in rural areas must be improved. While I welcome the proposed increase in investment in rural bus services, I am still to be convinced that the strategy is enough.
In conclusion, section 8.2 of the summary reminds us that
"The transport plans will present a programme of initiatives that will be implemented over the 10-year period in support of the objectives and targets in the RTS".
However, note the health warning that this will happen
"subject to the availability of resources."
I trust that the Executive and the Assembly will note fully the document before the House and ensure that the final regional transportation strategy receives the necessary resources to enable its full implementation.

Mr Mark Robinson: I would like to begin by congratulating the Minister and the Department for Regional Development on the proposed regional transportation strategy. Extensive research has been carried out to identify fully the different transport needs of society. The document is unique in that it distinguishes between urban and rural areas in the Province. It also looks at the Belfast metropolitan area as a separate entity. That is an extremely important basis for the document as those different areas experience transport problems which are unique to them. For example, someone living in the Belfast area experiences problems such as congestion and limited parking in Belfast city centre, whereas someone living in a rural area complains of a lack of public transport services or the poor condition of the roads. The strategy goes a long way towards addressing the complex transportation issues which Northern Ireland faces now and in the future. It is a very positive document, which examines in great detail the methods by which we can achieve a transport system that we can be proud of.
Transport issues affect everyone who lives and works in Northern Ireland, which is why this strategy is of relevance to the entire population. The proposed strategy is also very timely, as it looks at what can be achieved over the next 10 years and puts forward innovative measures to meet those goals.
Northern Ireland has the lowest roads expenditure in the UK. The level of funding for public transport has been insufficient, and this has led to a highly underdeveloped transport system and a road infrastructure that is crying out for investment. Urgent action on roads and public transport infrastructure and services is required if we are to prevent further deterioration.
Research has shown that there is an over-reliance here on road-based transport, with the car being the favourite mode of transport. The document has taken this fact and examined various methods by which we can move away from a transport system that is dominated by car use to a much more balanced and integrated system. That is not to say that this strategy ignores car use or the road network; in fact, it does quite the opposite. The document highlights the reality that the road network is of prime importance to the functioning of Northern Ireland. We have an extensive road network — it totals some 25,000 km. The document does not neglect the fact that roads are the dominant mode of internal transport here, accounting for 96% of passenger traffic.
Research, which was carried out to form this strategy, has shown that roads are of high importance to the public. It is a fact that most people want to see better road maintenance and the building of new roads and bypasses. This is hardly surprising, given a report by the Northern Ireland Audit Office on the structural maintenance of roads which noted a need to double the current maintenance budget in order to address the backlog which totals £120 million.
I would like to turn my focus to the public transport system in Northern Ireland. Our public transport system, mainly due to a combination of underfunding and the increase in use of the private car, has declined to an all-time low level. Unfortunately, due to this lack of expenditure we have been unable to make much needed improvements, which is why we have inadequate facilities and an old bus fleet. The average age of a bus in Northern Ireland is around 12 years old, which is unbelievable, given that the most innovative buses are in fact manufactured some 30 miles away, in Ballymena.
The availability of bus services has also been slowly declining, and frequencies on some routes operated by Ulsterbus and Citybus have decreased, leading to a year-on-year reduction in route kilometres. Research has shown that if we are to get car users to switch to public transport, then improvements to the public transport system are required urgently. Certain criteria must be achieved. People want to see an efficient and reliable service that offers value for money, and improved and increased routes which can reach some of the most isolated communities. Research has also shown that if people were within reasonable walking distance of a bus stop, they would be more inclined to use public transport.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Like most of the Members, I regret that we have only five minutes each in which to speak, but I will make the best of it.
The document contains a great deal of information and gives us a lot to work with. I have not been able to examine it in any great detail, but I am sure that I will be able to do so over time. The overarching objectives of the proposed regional development strategy are promoting a strong economy, protecting the environment and developing a more inclusive society. Achievement of those objectives depends very much on investment and where that investment is placed. Of course, there have been decades of underspending and underinvestment west of the Bann, and I wonder if this strategy will be any different from those we have had in the past.
People who live in rural areas have few options. This strategy, like others, seems to point towards most of the funding ending up in Belfast or the Greater Belfast area. As a consequence, rural areas will suffer. If the Belfast metropolitan plan is to be carried out to its fullest extent, those plans to push for movement on the rail issue will suck up much of the funding — albeit that those plans are worthwhile. Therefore, the fact that there are fewer options for those in rural areas will mean that a great deal of funding will disappear into those other areas and away from the rural areas west of the Bann. The roads there are poor, maintenance is a problem, and it seems that the budget will not alleviate that problem in the long or medium term.
Improving public transport is the best way forward. Thirty per cent of people have no car; 50% of people in Belfast have no access to a car. Those are fairly significant figures that must be taken into account. However, there are difficulties with implementing the strategy. At the moment, public transport is underused. On the main routes into Stormont in the morning, you could sit beside a bus lane for well over half an hour and not one bus would pass — and if one did, it would probably only have one or two passengers on board. We talk about value for money and the changes that will take place in the coming years. Any changes will be costly if we continue to use resources, such as bus lanes, as we have been doing. That will also encourage people to continue their love affair with the motor car – something that we have probably picked up from the Americans.
With regard to people cycling to work, at present there is not sufficient room on most roads to allow bicycles plus cars to travel without creating tailbacks, and there are consequential risks to cyclists. We have all this to grapple with, and it is not going to be easy. There is a need to get people out of their cars, and the Belfast metropolitan area is probably one of the first areas where we should make a move on that. People go from Belfast to Lisburn and vice versa, and it does not make much sense if there is one person to a car and tailbacks to and from Saintfield.
The strong push for rail is correct in its overall thrust, but it works against rural areas. Rural areas do not have that option, and, as far as we are concerned, value for money comes into the equation. Ninety-five per cent of deliveries of heavy freight are by road, and the doubling of road freight is causing more problems on the roads. The past strategy certainly had no vision for extending the rail network to Portadown, Armagh, Monaghan, Omagh, Strabane and Derry. Heavy vehicles have an impact on the ability to improve road safety, and it is vital to reduce the number of lorries and overloading. Recently the A4 has had a spate of fatal accidents, and passing bays or slow lanes for agricultural vehicles are the sort of thing we are looking for to reduce the death toll on that road and many other key roads in the area. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr P J Bradley: I was on the fact-finding group that visited Europe last week, and, as the Deputy Chairperson stated, our eyes were opened by the co-ordination and management in place there. If we started tomorrow morning, it would be 25 years before we could even hope to achieve anything near what they have.
I welcome the document, which is the result of co-operation between the Minister, his officials and the Committee. We worked long and hard on this, and on some page or other Committee members will see their personal input reflected. I certainly welcome the publication.
Almost everyone who has spoken has made reference to the rural situation and the problems of rural transportation in the proposed strategy, and I also wish to make some comments on that. No individual section of rural society can be singled out as suffering more than another by the unavailability of proper rural transport. However, those who would benefit most from such a provision include senior citizens who, for a variety of reasons, cannot provide personal transport, young people who have limited financial resources or are too young to own or drive a vehicle and rural mothers and housewives stranded in their homes all day if the family cars are required by their spouses to get to and from work.
Recently we have heard from other Committees, and in Question Time, about targeting social need and equality for all citizens. Only a fully acceptable regional transportation strategy will provide a level of equality for rural and isolated communities which will match, or come close to matching, the service available to their urban counterparts. I suppose parity of esteem is another phrase I could use, with everyone being equal.
I want to concentrate on the A1, an old hobby horse of mine. It is somewhat ironic that the last day we spoke on the regional transportation strategy, we recorded the death that morning of a French lady killed on that very road. This morning another death occurred on the same road between Newry and the border. I welcome the series of maps in the consultation paper which at least displays an acknowledgement of the pending and long overdue upgrading of the A1 route between Loughbrickland and the border at Killeen. Perhaps I am being a bit selfish here, but I would be more pleased if a section or a chapter, or even a sentence, had been devoted to the Euro-route. For decades we have been told by bureaucrats, senior officials and high-profile elected representatives of the importance of the development of a Euro-route to service the eastern seaboard of the island and to run between the key ports of Larne and Rosslare.
I welcome the stage that the proposals have reached, and I call on the Minister to assure the Assembly and, more importantly, local people, commuters and the haulage industry that delays will not be allowed to interfere with the strategy and its planned programme for the A1.
I do not intend to introduce any additional points regarding the A1 and its place in the strategy at this stage. However, I call on the Minister and his officials to initiate a further plan in an effort to upgrade the route to motorway status soon.
If we are to become fully integrated Europeans, enjoying the same quality of life as our fellow Europeans, it is only right to expect that the drive time for the 100-mile trip between Dublin and Belfast should be similar to that over the same distance on the roads of France, Germany or Italy.
I also seek an assurance from the Minister that every euro outside Peace II and INTERREG is made available to the regional transportation project, and that he will demand that the powers that be at Westminster will draw down funds from Brussels, which are there for the asking, but which can be obtained only through the Chancellor’s office. Are we losing out on EU funding because of the Chancellor’s inaction? I want to emphasise the need to get work started on the A1 — tomorrow morning if possible. I can make no more urgent plea than that.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I welcome the regional transportation strategy; it is vital for Northern Ireland’s economic and social well-being, and travelling methods are crucial to the success of industry, agriculture and tourism. Further investment is necessary across the board, but rural areas have been neglected for far too long — no wonder that people in Belfast cannot find their way into the country.
I invited some businessmen to the Cookstown area. At the end of the motorway they were completely lost, and one man said that he could travel no further on such a road and that he wanted to go home.
As a Member for Mid Ulster — which has no rail network and a limited bus service — I bring it home to the Assembly that services in rural areas are more in need of improvement than those anywhere else. Thirty per cent of the people do not have a car at their disposal. Mid Ulster is a major rural area, and there is no excuse for a limited service.
It has been said that Mid Ulster does not have a road that even looks like a motorway let alone a railway line, yet people from Mid Ulster are expected to travel to work in Belfast. We are disadvantaged when it comes to road transport. School buses can travel on many rural roads; therefore, the same roads should also be accessible to public transport. If that is not financially viable, public transport and school buses should be combined in order to facilitate those going to school or travelling to work.
In rural areas schoolchildren often have no way to get home if they cannot travel on the school bus; therefore, they may lose out on beneficial after-school activities.
Someone has to pay for good public transport, and a toll system on specialised roads and bridges has been suggested. A community transport system is being promoted in the Cookstown area. The hire of a bus costs 10 pence a mile plus the price of the driver.
Does the Minister agree that Belfast International Airport is the most important route to transport goods from the Province to other parts of the world? However, does it have a railway station to convey passengers to other destinations? No, it does not. There is no other country in the Western World with an airport of that calibre without that facility. The prospect of Lisburn becoming a city is another factor that must be taken into account.
Since this is a 10-year plan, which is unlikely to be completed for 25 years if funding is not available, an airport line would be a vital addition to the railway network. However, there are cost implications, but to be without improved transport for another 10 or 25 years would be cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. We must not allow all our railway lines be closed in one fell swoop.
Northern Ireland is growing and evolving, and we must develop our transport system in advance so that we do not hold back our industries, our tourist potential and the general economic and social well-being and safety of our people. In this computer age, new ideas are coming forth daily. Let us not look at the impossible, and let us avoid the short-sightedness that could restrict our development of Northern Ireland as an area which exports people for their expertise and imports them for leisure. I hope that now that we have a devolved Government, all the concerns of rural people will be considered as well as those of people living in cities.

Mr Jim Shannon: I welcome the regional transportation strategy. I want to put on record my thanks to the Minister and his Department for the provision of the Comber bypass, which is an integral part of the regional strategy. After 28 years of campaigning for it, it is a welcome decision in that area.
I want to focus on one aspect of the regional transportation strategy: public transport and its accessibility, specifically in my constituency of Strangford, which is a rural area. The number of constituents who come into the advice centre in Newtownards to complain about the bus service is staggering. Translink is a business and must operate as such, but customer satisfaction is what keeps them in business.
Let me illustrate this. One of my constituents, an elderly lady in her eighties, lives in a rural townland down the Ards Peninsula and regularly caught the bus at 9.10 am for a doctor’s appointment in Newtownards. One morning the bus did not arrive. There was no indication that it would not come. Again we find that this public transport company failed to let its customers know of its plans. Customer satisfaction has been the fall-down. We were told that there were too few people using that particular service to sustain its viability, but its removal and the way that it was done left that pensioner stuck for two hours on a cold January morning until the next bus arrived.
That is not the only example. A university student informed me that it was cheaper for him to pay upwards of £200 a month for a car than to have the hassle and expense of using public transport. That is contrary to what we are trying to achieve in the regional transportation strategy. He complained that he had to get a bus and two trains to attend university in Jordanstown. That could take up to two hours each way. He spent four hours travelling during the day; he could have used that time more effectively for study, or by earning the money to study.
It is ridiculous that trains and buses have been slower for some in the past year than they were 40 years ago. That student indicated that he is not the only student with that predicament. He said that many students found that getting themselves deeper into debt by buying a car was better than relying on public transport where there were delays and hold-ups, such as having to sit around a station for 20 minutes because of leaves on the track. That is one example. Students could miss lectures and connecting buses. It is already hard for them to revise and to complete their dissertations and essays without adding two to four hours of travel into the equation. We must consider that when we are talking about a regional transportation strategy. It must be workable, accessible and on time, so that people can get to important appointments with their doctors; so that students are not spending a fortune in money and time trying to get to class; and so that pensioners and young mothers are not stranded because they live in a hamlet and not a large town.
There has been one bright spot in relation to public transportation — the community transport schemes, such as Peninsula Community Transport Ltd scheme based in Strangford, which the Department for Regional Development has helped to fund. Two doctors who recognised the huge shortfall in transportation needs for local communities — whether to get to the doctor, to take disabled children out for the day, or even for rural families to get their weekly shopping — initiated these organisations. That has been successful.
With population growth, the shortfall between transportation and transportation needs is increasing. For example, in September I had parents queuing up to complain that the school buses were dangerously oversubscribed. Some parents had to send their children to school even earlier so that they arrived there safely. Problems such as these will continue to grow over the years as the population increases. In the Newtownards district, the population has increased by 22·2%. District population in the whole of the borough has increased by 26·3%.
Newtownards has good potential for further development in transport using the former Belfast to Comber railway line — the E-way, as many people know it. That idea should be taken on board, and perhaps the Minister could examine it. Rural transport needs to be accountable to the environment, and that is why it needs to work with the Roads Service. The state of the roads is of concern both to the businesses and residents of the area. Erosion of the roadside has become a huge problem in rural areas. Cars and lorries are getting bigger, but the roads have not changed in 50 years. The lorries and cars are taking away some of the banks and grass areas, and that has to be looked at in the overall strategy.
The Strangford area is famed for its beauty, but that has been marred by the inadequacy of the public transport provision and the quality of the road network. If public transport is not funded correctly, it will continue to fail to deliver on its commitment. The needs of a rural community can be met only when a satisfactory system is in place, and only then will the number of people using public transport increase.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: Like other Members, I welcome some parts of the report. However, the section of the report that deals with rural roads and communities will not tackle the real problems. That section needs to be revisited, and more work needs to be done on it. I will explain why.
The report addresses the issues of tackling marginalisation and ending isolation. Accessing homes in many rural communities depends on private roadways, and in some cases, many miles of private roadways. Some of those roadways are substandard and in a very bad state of repair. The residents in those isolated areas include the elderly and the disabled, and I presume that the report is referring to those people.
However, when those people go to the Department for Regional Development to ask for help with their roads, they are quickly told to go away and that there will not be any help for them. They are told that they do not meet the criteria. I know some of those people, and I am sure that other Members do also. Those people then try to access money from some of the Peace programmes. They put in their applications, and there is a great deal of merit in those applications. However, the funding bodies divert those applications to the appropriate Government Department — in the case of roads, to the Department for Regional Development. Its answer is, "No, sorry. There is no way that funding should be diverted to that cause, no matter how needy." The Department’s reason is that the proposals do not meet its criteria.
The report addresses the needs of rural communities, and at the same time criteria are being applied to them, the criteria that the Department for Regional Development applies to a multimillion-pound housing development in a large town. The requirements are a road at least four and a half metres wide, a footpath and this and that, plus several coats of tarmac. After that, people can come back and the Department might consider matters further. That whole area needs to be revisited. As long as the Department continues to use those criteria, it will ensure that the very people that it is paying lip-service to in this document will continue to be marginalised and isolated.
I know of several communities that have applied for funding — not to the Department for Regional Development, but to Europe or some other body — and invariably they receive that response. When the applications are referred to the Department for Regional Development, it says that they cannot be approved. All that those communities want in the twenty-first century is basic access to their houses. We have the Department’s criteria, supposedly for rural communities, but they are applied to the multimillion-pound developers. There is something illogical, unfair and not quite right in the way that the Department deals with rural communities.
I am happy that the Minister is present at the debate. The point that I highlighted will be a key element in tackling the transport needs of those who live in isolated areas. The money will be available for that purpose at no cost to the Department for Regional Development, because it is derived from the peace and reconciliation fund. Many of the areas that I referred to are cross- community — those who live there share the same roads, and they want to be able to drive or walk along them safely without having to negotiate deep puddles of water, as has been the case in recent weeks. I hope that a means of applying sensible and appropriate criteria to rural communities can be found.

Mr Peter Robinson: I am grateful to Members for their contributions, and I will try to respond to as many of them as possible. I will respond in writing to those that I do not get the opportunity to refer to. I also hope to make some personal observations on the matter as one elected representative to others.
When I opened the debate, I said that I wanted to thank certain key individuals, and I mentioned the Committee for Regional Development. I wish to record my appreciation of some of those who have been engaged in the preparation of the proposed strategy.
I have been involved in elected politics for over a quarter of a century. During most of that period, I have been on the other side of the counter. I have met and locked horns with Government Ministers and their officials. Members will not be surprised to learn that I have often played an adversarial role, and sometimes an almost combative one. In doing so, there is a tendency not to appreciate the calibre of the public servants who service our democratic institutions. One of the most valuable experiences I have had as a Minister is to get to know the army of dedicated officials who passionately labour to improve services and provision for everyone in Northern Ireland. I heard the comment of the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development, and I know that he and his Committee members, who have spent countless hours in the company of those same people, will share my assessment.
In today’s context, I want to commend, in particular, the key officials who were involved in the preparation of the proposed strategy. I hope that Members will agree that they have provided an excellent document for the consideration of the House and the public. It would also be appropriate to mention the panel of experts who provided specialist advice for their contribution. I thank Prof David Begg, Mr David Lock, Prof Austin Smyth and Mr Stephen Kingon. I also express my gratitude to Mrs Joan Whiteside, the chairperson of the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, who worked alongside the panel, and the Department’s specialist adviser.
When I moved into the Department for Regional Development, I, like every other elected representative, had a sense of the shortcomings of the infrastructure in the Province. However, during my first-day briefings, I was shocked to see the audit of our roads, transport, water and sewerage infrastructures. I learnt of the scale of the massive underfunding that there has been, and of the shortfall in the provision that we need. That is the appalling legacy of direct rule.
I spent the early part of my tenure in office highlighting the need for additional funding for that infrastructure. I am glad to say that over that period there has been a growing recognition of that need. That is not surprising, because under devolution we are governed by a group of people who live in Northern Ireland, who get reactions from people in Northern Ireland, and who know the roads and transportation needs.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
A start has been made on additional funding. Trains have already been mentioned — £103 million was allocated as a result of the AD Little review. One of the key elements has been the recognition by the Department of Finance and Personnel, and the statement by the then Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mark Durkan, that roads and transport were up there alongside health and education as priorities for Northern Ireland public expenditure.
It was right for him to reach that conclusion, and it was proper for him to say it. It is all the more proper as it starts to feed its way into the public expenditure programme. However, it was not enough to have an idea of what was wrong. Therefore, this strategy forms an essential part of the way forward. I call it more than a vision. Undoubtedly it looks 10 years ahead to what things could be like, but it also maps out the way forward and recognises the hard lessons that have to be learnt.
Money is needed. Many Members have said that we have to pay for these improvements and that we have to get the money from somewhere. We have tried to make a realistic assessment of the funds that will be necessary to do the job and the shortfall that we can expect if we extrapolate public expenditure over 10 years. We have looked at how we can raise the shortfall of £950 million.
In many ways it is more than a vision; it is a vision with legs. It is a strategy with a way forward showing how it can take us through to the goals that it has laid out. I emphasise that this is not the strategy — it is a proposed strategy. It is there for consultation; it is there to hear what Members have to say. It is there to hear what the public has to say, and I will be interested to hear the Regional Development Committee’s views, particularly in the light of their European experience, which the Chairperson mentioned. I look forward to hearing some of the lessons that they have learnt in Europe and how they may be applied to Northern Ireland.
We have a very good consultation document that I hope will initiate a debate. I hope that it will be an informed debate, because I suspect that at least one of today’s speeches was made without having reference to the hard work of reading the document. If I get a chance, I will come to that in due course.
I will respond to some of the individual issues that were raised. I commend the Committee for the positive role that it has played, and the Chairperson referred to the great challenge of securing the £950 million. On pages 26 and 27 of the report you will see the consequences of not finding the money, and that was the hardest lesson that I had to learn. Those two pages picture the bleakest backcloth that one could imagine about the prospects for Northern Ireland on the basis of things continuing as they are with the present level of funding.
Among the 12 points that are laid out on pages 26 and 27: there will be very heavy congestion almost leading to gridlock; the roads infrastructure will be in an even worse state of maintenance as the backlog grows; there will be poorer services on public transport — even poorer than exist at present. That is the menu, not if people cut back on expenditure, but if it remains the same. That will be the future for Northern Ireland if we do not do anything in addition to what we have at present.
That is why the Chairperson is right to refer to the great challenge of getting that other £950 million and how essential it is for Northern Ireland. He is right to say that our economy will benefit from better transportation, and he is also right to talk about the health benefits of fewer accidents. I will read the correct figures, and not those that were imparted by the Member for North Down, Ms Morrice, who seems to prefer to look at the diagram on page 69 rather than the one on page 127.
If she were to look at the diagram on page 127, she might pour a little less ridicule on the statistics.
A number of Members, not least the Chairperson, raised the importance of the north-west. I believe that we will hear much from the north-west lobby over the next weeks and months. We have one regional transportation strategy, and, as was indicated, transportation plans will flow from that. In whatever scenario we go forward, we will be paying close attention to the needs of the north-west. ‘Shaping Our Future’ recognises the importance of the north-west, and its daughter document, ‘Regional Transportation Strategy’, will also do that. Whether that means a separate plan that will look at the transportation needs of the north-west or whether they will be incorporated into the wider network is a matter that we will leave for discussion over the coming weeks.
The Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee made reference to the under-utilisation of European funding. He is right that, in diagrammatical form in the document, we do draw attention to the £10 million that could come from European funding to make up the whole of the £950 million additional funds. However, while we have identified that £10 million, which was principally sourced through the Peace II and INTERREG III programmes, there is a further £52·3 million, which is perhaps somewhat hidden in the document. It is in the building sustainable prosperity European programme, which is additional to the UK nationally and is anticipated in public expenditure baselines.
Reference was made to rail freight. Unlike Europe where there is considerable potential for rail freight, Northern Ireland’s potential is somewhat limited because the distances involved are quite small. Distances of well over 200 miles are needed to make rail financially viable. Less than one quarter of 1% of freight moving into or out of Northern Ireland is by rail, so we have to consider the size of Northern Ireland and the limitations that come as a result of that.
I want to make reference to the comments made by the Deputy Chairperson, Mr McFarland. He also had the experience of the European findings. I look forward to hearing of his experiences and seeing to what extent we can incorporate his ideas, through the consultation process, into any full strategy that comes forward. He referred to congestion tolling; I do not wish to be the person to experiment with these things. We have to get it right here. Other people are learning lessons, and many people in Northern Ireland might prefer that they go through that more painful experience and that we learn the lessons from them. It does not form an essential part of the £950 million. If money can come from that source, clearly it can take some of the pressure off other areas that need some of the £950 million or allow us to have a surplus and a supplementary aspect to the regional transportation strategy.
Mr McFarland also made reference to the Executive programme funds. Our proposals in this regard are realistic. The Executive programme funds may not live for the whole 10 years, and if they do not, the money will — and some of us believe that this is the right thing anyway — go back to the Departments and lift the level of the amount that would come to the Department for those purposes. Based upon what the Executive have released in the past, the £500 million of Executive programme funds is a realistic target for us, and I hope we can bring that about.
I want to move on to my Colleague, the Member for Foyle, Mr Hay. He referred to the historic underfunding that there has been and the difficulties in rural settings. I was glad to hear at least one Member of the House indicate that if we had an adequate public transportation service, the Member would use it.
It is to be hoped that we can do that. Much of the debate has been about the balance that must be struck. When some Members sat down I got the impression that they felt that public transport would be good for other people and that that would make life easier on the roads for them. We must change the whole culture of public transport. We have not done that. One Member suggested that it might take 20 to 30 years to make the modal shift. That is probably right. Northern Ireland is holding back on the shift towards public transportation because of its heavy reliance on motor cars. The statistics on the increase in licensed vehicles over the last decade show us out in front with 31%, while Scotland has 19%, England has 16% and Wales has14%.
The challenge facing us is huge, but the proposed strategy provides a blueprint to enable us to take a significant and vital step to achieving our goals. It will also provide the basis for delivering a transportation system fit for the twenty-first century.
It seems that the Department’s evaluation of the £325 million that might come from the private sector was thought to be unrealistic. The experience and achievement in Great Britain were taken into account, and we can achieve that figure.
In roads and transport Northern Ireland is capital intensive in the provision of our bus fleet and trains and in relation to roads. Our infrastructure is high in capital expenditure. The room for private sector initiatives, such as private finance initiatives, is all the greater, and I have a dedicated division — dedicated, in every sense — within the Department considering what is possible. We will want to consider these issues with the Committee for Regional Development.
Many Members expressed a feeling that the way in which we are treating rural dwellers is harsh. One Member for Mid Ulster, Mr Armstrong, who is not present, stressed that the Department was almost discriminating in favour of the Belfast area. I draw his attention to page 50 of the regional transportation strategy document, which looks at the funding for the four areas — the regional strategic transport network, the Belfast metropolitan area, the other urban areas and the rural areas. The pie chart shows that the rural areas have 33% of the funding, which is the highest of the four slices. The Belfast metropolitan area is receiving only 24%. It is important to recognise that there are considerable problems in rural areas, such as roads maintenance. It is intended that a high proportion of the expenditure on roads maintenance will go to rural areas, which will benefit all people living in rural Northern Ireland.
Mr Ford indicated that the £80 million of developer contributions might be coming too late. We are where we are now, and I was not in the Department for Regional Development 10 years ago when it would have been nice to have got money out of developers. It is not simply commercial development that we are talking about. The regional development strategy shows that there is a significant house-build programme. The figure of £80 million takes account of that. If we can supplement that figure with funding from commercial developers, we will be in an even stronger position.
I have not forgotten about the importance of walking and cycling in the context of the transportation strategy. About 5% of additional funding is allocated to walking and cycling, and about 3% of the total proposed strategy expenditure will be for walking and cycling. They are as important as other modes of transport.
I assure Mr Ford that I have not forgotten about the importance of railways. However, the key issue is that we were facing the inevitable closure of Northern Ireland’s railway network. Undoubtedly, had devolution not come to Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Office and the Government would have taken that step. The Dublin to Belfast line might have been spared, but there would certainly have been nothing left north of Ballymena. The Whitehead line and the line from Antrim to Knockmore would have been closed. Therefore, it was important for the Department to consolidate the rail network to ensure that it could be saved and given a real chance to be part of the future of public transportation.
The AD Little report gave us options. The Executive chose the option of consolidation for funding. The idea is to consolidate the rail network around a core, build it up, make it viable and attractive, put new trains on it and ensure good service. We want to persuade the Member for Foyle to leave his car behind and get the train to Belfast, where, it is to be hoped, one of his Colleagues will collect him from the station if he does not wish to get on a bus. We have that opportunity, and we have funding in place for 23 new train sets. We can show people what it is possible to do with the railways. If they can be built up and made more attractive to other people besides the Member for Foyle, we could examine the options of enhancing and expanding the network. The right thing to do is to concentrate on the core and make it attractive in the hope of reversing the decline of the rail network.
This strategy has been called a roads-based system. It is easy for people to say that the Department should put more money into public transport rather than roads. I want to give the House some statistics — not to bamboozle, but to inform the debate. Public transport accounts for about 4% of use at present. However, 16% of the Department’s budget is for public transport. That indicates considerable recognition of the issue by the Department at present. Under the proposed strategy, the percentage will be increased to 32%, which means that twice the current percentage of funding will be available for public transport.
It would be nice if everybody, except those for whom the car is essential, would use public transport. That is not possible. It will take a long time to effect that modal shift and get people away from viewing the car as an extension to the home. The first step is to offer them an attractive alternative. We could use a big stick and threaten people with tolls and congestion and parking charges. However, the Department recognises the need to make a major start to the strategy by increasing public transport funding from 16% to 32%. It constitutes recognition that there must be a push towards public transport. Many Members mentioned the space that is taken up on the road by four buses, by comparison with 100 cars — one did so in graphic terms. That point illustrates how public transport contributes to alleviating roads congestion.
One of the first statistics that I obtained when I took up ministerial office was that within 20 years the number of vehicles on the roads will have doubled unless there is a push towards public transport. Anybody who travels on the Saintfield Road or through the Sandyknowes roundabout will recognise how the state of Northern Ireland’s transportation system would be affected by a doubling of traffic levels.
I realise that I am running out of time. However, I will reflect on the responses that I received in the House today, and on the further responses that I will get from the Committee for Regional Development and the public during the next 10 weeks, before formulating the final draft for the Assembly’s consideration. I hope that I will have done so before the summer recess. I commend the proposed strategy to the House and to the people that we all serve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly takes note of the Proposed Regional Transportation Strategy Consultation paper published on 4 February 2002.

Assembly: Environment Committee

Resolved:
That Mr Francie Molloy replace Mr Mitchel McLaughlin on the Committee for the Environment. — [Mr C Murphy.]

Assembly: Agriculture and Rural Development Committee

Resolved:
That Mr Mick Murphy replace Mr Francie Molloy on the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. — [Mr C Murphy.]

Assembly: Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee

Resolved:
That Mr John Kelly replace Mr Barry Mc Elduff on the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure. — [Mr C Murphy.]

Assembly Standing Orders

Mr Speaker: There are two motions to amend Standing Orders. I propose to conduct one debate only, because both motions are on the same issue. I shall call the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures to move the first motion. If the House wishes, the debate will take place on both motions. When those who wish to speak have done so, I will call the Chairperson to make his winding-up speech, if necessary. I will put the Question on the first motion before asking the Chairperson to formally move the second motion, putting it to the House without debate.
I remind the House that because the motions relate to changes to Standing Orders they require cross- community support. If the necessary support is apparent, that might be provided simply by a collection of voices.

Mr Conor Murphy: I beg to move
That in Standing Order 48, delete "Statutory" from the title and in line 3, delete "Statutory"; and in Standing Order 31 (2) line 4, delete all after "otherwise" and insert:
"and the provisions of this Standing Order and of Standing Order 33 shall apply in relation to the Committee of the Centre acting by virtue of this paragraph as they apply in relation to a Statutory Committee."
Both motions to amend Standing Orders are linked. Therefore I will speak on them together. The purpose of the first amendment is to close a gap in the Standing Order that relates to circumstances in which business falls to more than one Committee. Standing Order 48, as it is currently drafted, contains two provisions that relate to the overlap of Committee business. The first part states that where there is an overlap of business, the Chairpersons of the affected Committees will consult with one another and agree on which Committee should take the lead on the subject under consideration. The second part provides that if the two Committees cannot reach an agreement, the matter will be referred to the Business Committee for arbitration. However, the Standing Order, as presently drafted, is not as specific as it should be, because provisions apply only to Statutory Committees and not to Standing Committees. For example, because of its cross-cutting remit, the Committee of the Centre regularly seeks the views of other Committees that may have input into matters that it is considering. Similarly, other Statutory Committees seek the views of the Committee of the Centre.
In theory, however, the present wording of Standing Order 48 provides that a Statutory Committee is under no obligation to consult the Committee of the Centre on any matter other than legislation. Conversely, of course, the Committee of the Centre is under no obligation to consult other Statutory Committees on matters other than proposed legislation.
Fortunately, the practice to date has been one of full co-operation. However, the Committee of the Centre felt that it would be beneficial to close the loophole so that in the event, however unlikely, of a disagreement there would be a procedure in place to resolve it. Therefore the Committee of the Centre asked the Committee on Procedures to consider the issue.
On doing that, the Committee on Procedures then agreed that, rather than simply make reference to the Committee of the Centre in Standing Order 48, the provisions of the Standing Orders should be made applicable to all Committees. The Committee agreed that that could be done through a minor amendment to Standing Order 48 by removing the word "Statutory" in the Standing Order.
The change will mean that, when there is an overlap in business between any type of Committee, the Committees will, as a matter of course, seek the views of the other affected Committee or Committees before coming to a decision on the matter. Similarly, the Business Committee will arbitrate if there is a point of dispute.
As a result of that minor change, a consequential change will also be required to Standing Order 31(2), which provides that, in relation to any proposed legislation where there is an overlapping remit, the provisions of Standing Order 48 will apply to the Committee of the Centre. The proposed change to Standing Order 48 will make that reference unnecessary.
On the second motion, the Committee agreed that the changes to Standing Order 48 would require a change to the Committee section of Standing Orders. I emphasise that that is a presentational change, and therefore there are no changes to the wording of the Standing Orders in that section. The proposed restructuring, as set out in the Order Paper, will ensure that the Standing Orders appear in a more logical fashion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That in Standing Order 48, delete "Statutory" from the title and in line 3, delete "Statutory"; and in Standing Order 31(2) line 4, delete all after "otherwise" and insert:
"and the provisions of this Standing Order and of Standing Order 33 shall apply in relation to the Committee of the Centre acting by virtue of this paragraph as they apply in relation to a Statutory Committee."
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That Standing Orders 48-54 and 56-59 be renumbered so that:
49 becomes 48 53 becomes 49 54 becomes 50 56 becomes 51 57 becomes 52 58 becomes 53 59 becomes 54 50 becomes 56 51 becomes 57 52 becomes 58 48 becomes 59 — [Mr C Murphy.]
Adjourned at 5.53 pm.